4 ms·

You must not see the value in dictionaries, or explanatory text, or examples at all. Let me rephrase: would you have a problem with RFC 2119 if it defined the

You must not see the value in dictionaries, or explanatory text, or examples at all. Let me rephrase: would you have a problem with RFC 2119 if it defined the terms P0, P1, and P2? If so, why? (That would be a bizarre stance to me.) If not, why do you see it as problematic that they chose the words MUST, SHOULD, and MAY, instead of P0, P1, and P2? After all, there's no logical fault in choosing more memorable names. I see this problem in code often too. Some people think it's sufficient to give functions and variables English names with "obvious" meanings. Yet however "obvious" the meaning is to you, it can be interpreted differently by different people because English is ambiguous. Such symbol names without comments ascribing them a meaning plain English might as well just be "xyzzy", "qwert", and "l33t". English-named symbols are mnemonic devices, nothing more. Example: the code base I work on as two commonly-used functions, "findObject" and "getObject". One returns a reference to an object only if already cached; the other fetches it from disk if necessary. Which does which? Does "find" mean to go out and actively "find" the object? Or is it referring to the fact that it only returns the object if it is "found" in cache? After all "get" is a pretty active verb. I guarantee you, whoever named these (and didn't document them!) thought like you, that the meanings were "obvious" and "unambiguous". And I bet they were, to that person, at that time, in that context. I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not, or whether SHOULD indicates nice-to-have-but-not-mandatory, or purely optional. They're terrible English words to use in a formal specification. But the mere fact that RFC 2119 disambiguates them as formal terms in the context of specifications makes them eminently usable for that purpose.

chrisseaton 7y ago
No you're missing my point. These words already have definitions. You can look them up in a dictionary. Or almost all speakers know them anyway. Why do we need an RFC, and to write them in capital letters? What does the RFC add to anything? If you removed the capitalisation and the reference to the RFC then your text means exactly the same thing, as the words already had the same meanings. > English is ambiguous Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. > I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not What do you think 'shall' means in a normal conversation? How could it mean anything except mandatory? In what normal English context does 'shall' mean optional? If a normal person tells you that you must submit your expenses before the end of the month do you get confused about whether it's required or not? If they write it in capitals and refer you to the RFC do you suddenly understand now?
- colanderman 7y ago
  > Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. By using complete sentences to rule out grey areas. I see no point in furthering this discussion. Your defeatist assertions like the above "there's no possible way to disambiguate English", your refusal to admit that apparent synonyms such as "must" and "shall" might not be perfect synonyms to people other than yourself, and your repeated sarcasm and snark, suggest to me that you do not see the opposite viewpoint as legitimate, and therefore are not amenable to changing your viewpoint.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC? > "there's no possible way to disambiguate English" This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from. > your repeated sarcasm and snark Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression. My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.
    - charlieda 7y ago
      The RFC is far more useful in dealing with the word "should". It is used in the standards to mean something that is optional but strongly recommended ("there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item"), whereas in english the first definition that comes up is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness". To me it seems that there could easily be confusion between these two interpretations.

chrisseaton 7y ago

No you're missing my point. These words already have definitions. You can look them up in a dictionary. Or almost all speakers know them anyway. Why do we need an RFC, and to write them in capital letters? What does the RFC add to anything? If you removed the capitalisation and the reference to the RFC then your text means exactly the same thing, as the words already had the same meanings. > English is ambiguous Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. > I for one, can never remember whether SHALL is mandatory or not What do you think 'shall' means in a normal conversation? How could it mean anything except mandatory? In what normal English context does 'shall' mean optional? If a normal person tells you that you must submit your expenses before the end of the month do you get confused about whether it's required or not? If they write it in capitals and refer you to the RFC do you suddenly understand now?

colanderman 7y ago
> Well then how does the RFC solve that problem? Their definitions of these terms are using other English words which are also ambiguous. The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. By using complete sentences to rule out grey areas. I see no point in furthering this discussion. Your defeatist assertions like the above "there's no possible way to disambiguate English", your refusal to admit that apparent synonyms such as "must" and "shall" might not be perfect synonyms to people other than yourself, and your repeated sarcasm and snark, suggest to me that you do not see the opposite viewpoint as legitimate, and therefore are not amenable to changing your viewpoint.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > The same way that a dictionary definition clarifies the meaning of a single English word. Right, so use the dictionary we already have! Why do we need the RFC? > "there's no possible way to disambiguate English" This quote isn't from me. I didn't say that - I don't know where you've got it from. > your repeated sarcasm and snark Sarcasm and snark? I don't use those rhetorical devices if I can avoid it. I don't think I've used them in this thread at all! I don't know where you've got the idea that I'm not arguing seriously from. I'm sorry I gave that impression. My legitimate argument is that nobody is honestly confused by words like must - nobody. The RFC is over-the-top formalism where it's not needed.
  - charlieda 7y ago
    The RFC is far more useful in dealing with the word "should". It is used in the standards to mean something that is optional but strongly recommended ("there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item"), whereas in english the first definition that comes up is "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness". To me it seems that there could easily be confusion between these two interpretations.