On Fri, 20 Oct 2023, David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 07:03:56AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > Reading DTSpec v0.4, near the beginning: > > > > "The word should is used to indicate that among several possibilities > > one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or > > excluding others; or that a certain course of action is preferred but > > not necessarily required; or that (in the negative form) a certain > > course of action is deprecated but not prohibited (should equals is > > recommended that)." > > > > It seems contradictory to suggest that "should" implies > > "recommended" but, in the negative sense, it can also support > > I believe that by "in the negative form", it means when something says > "should not".. > > > "deprecated", which typically suggests something that is *not* > > recommended but is nonetheless acceptable. > > ..in which case being similar to "deprecated" makes sense. > > I will agree that saying "in the negative form", parenthesized, > amongst a cluster of interacting clauses is probably not a great way > of expressing this, and it might be clearer to explicitly give a > meaning to "should not". Yes, I see that I misread it somewhat and it's not as bad as I thought originally, but it definitely would be clearer if the concept of "should not" was combined with the idea of, say: "Should not" means that, even if a particular possibility is discouraged or deprecated, it is still acceptable as a viable choice. Or something like that. "in the negative form" is way too wordy for saying simply, "should not". rday
