7 ms·

This comment has no place at the top of the page. > the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style I'll admit, reading standards is more difficult than re

This comment has no place at the top of the page. > the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style I'll admit, reading standards is more difficult than reading regular prose, it is nearly impossible to use language precisely without getting too verbose. Languages, and English especially, are full of little ambiguities; even simple words like "or" have more than one meaning! This doesn't quite cut it when it comes to specifications. If the spec is ambiguous then it's possible for two different implementors two come up with incompatible implementations, which kinda ruins the point of a spec. Try to think of RFCs (and standards in general) as the legalese of the software world. They're more verbose than you're used to, but that's necessary. >have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY... Let's take a look at RFC2119 [1], where these terms are defined. The word "MUST" means you must do something, the word "SHOULD" means you should do it, but you aren't required to, and the word "MAY" means you could if you wanted to, but aren't required to. Well... that's what those words mean in English too! Are you really complaining that you must know English in order to read English? The only slightly confusing word is SHALL, which is fairly uncommon in modern English. Even SHALL has not been redefined though, in RFCs it means exactly what it means anywhere else. > And if you think the problem is just me, try finding any piece of software that actually correctly implements any RFC spec :) Adding a smile to the end of your sentence doesn't make it any less stupid or wrong. Almost everything you touch today when using the internet is defined by an RFC. ARP (RFC826) is dead simple, and has been correctly implemented for decades. TCP (RFC793) admittedly took a few revisions to get right, but if it wasn't correctly implemented we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. Come up with your own examples, there are plenty more. If you think engineers are so stupid they don't know how to understand text which is a slightly more verbose than usual you have a pretty low opinion of humanity. > So basically, the all text format of RFCs is the least of their problems. Have you ever tried to read a spec which is actually difficult, like c++ [2]? Specifying a language is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than specifying a protocol or "best practice", and it shows in how dense language specifications are. RFCs are pretty damn readable, I often browse through them for entertainment. > (I wonder how many people die every year because the National Weather Service issues tornado warnings in ALL CAPS with VROUS ABREVS throughout the text. Computers can do lowercase now, guys...) Once again, you must have a pretty low opinion of humanity to think we don't know how to read abbreviations or uppercase characters. 1: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt 2: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3337.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n333...

makmanalp 14y ago
Let's take a look. Oxford says "should" implies "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"[0]. That sure does not sound like "aren't required to" to me. Sure enough, if you look into "must" [1] you see that it is defined as "be obliged to; should". Maybe you shouldn't be chiding people implying how simple English is when you're not so solid on it yourself, especially when you've given a whole treatise in your previous paragraph about how language is full of ambiguities and words can have multiple meanings and such. [0] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must Edit: Am I wrong? Am I ruder than the parent? Awaiting comments. Edit2: Okay, so it looks like I'm wrong about "should". I really don't know why the heck "should" is listed as a definition for "must", then. I'd still like to point out that even the dictionary seems confused and maintain my point that it's not as simple and clear as portrayed.
- chc 14y ago
  Trotting out brief dictionary definitions is rarely useful for precisely nailing down the common meaning of words, as it is hard to express nuance in such a small space. Fortunately, though, Oxford actually does go out of its way to make it clear. Unfortunately, you omitted those extra details. Let's look at the bullet points clarifying the meaning: "indicating a desirable or expected state" "used to give … advice or suggestions" One of the examples it gives is, "by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence." Few native English-speakers would read that sentence as saying that there is no option but for students to read with a large degree of independence. What it means is that such a level of reading is desirable or expected, but not required. In common usage, should is much weaker than must. Another good example: "I should exercise tonight" vs. "I must exercise tonight." The former almost sounds like the speaker knows it won't happen and feels guilty, whereas the latter sounds like the speaker is bound and determined to exercise. Don't you think?
- saurik 14y ago
  The way words are used in native languages and the connotations they bring up is not easily and fully explained by a 7 word blip in a dictionary... even then, this dictionary claims that must is "should (expressing necessity)": that parenthetical is key to the strength of "must". In fact, looking at it, you dropped half of the definition you pulled for "should" ("typically when criticizing someone's actions") and I will claim are mischaracterizing what an "obligation" is (just because I am obligated to do something, doesn't mean it is a necessity for me to do it). Putting this into practice, if you tell someone that they /should/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot, normal speakers of English will treat that drastically differently than if you instead say that they /must/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot; the former feels subjective while the latter feels objective. For a rather clear example of this: "you /must/ open the drawer before you [can] take things out of it" would go unquestioned, while "you /should/ open the drawer before you take things out of it" will cause many people to wonder what the alternative to opening the drawer could be. (edit: I see that chc made a similar complaint about your comment to me 10 minutes earlier, but I didn't see that comment as I was working on mine; I think mine has some value still with the examples, and a slightly different focus, so I will leave it in the thread as a reply.)

makmanalp 14y ago

Let's take a look. Oxford says "should" implies "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"[0]. That sure does not sound like "aren't required to" to me. Sure enough, if you look into "must" [1] you see that it is defined as "be obliged to; should". Maybe you shouldn't be chiding people implying how simple English is when you're not so solid on it yourself, especially when you've given a whole treatise in your previous paragraph about how language is full of ambiguities and words can have multiple meanings and such. [0] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/should [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/must Edit: Am I wrong? Am I ruder than the parent? Awaiting comments. Edit2: Okay, so it looks like I'm wrong about "should". I really don't know why the heck "should" is listed as a definition for "must", then. I'd still like to point out that even the dictionary seems confused and maintain my point that it's not as simple and clear as portrayed.

chc 14y ago
Trotting out brief dictionary definitions is rarely useful for precisely nailing down the common meaning of words, as it is hard to express nuance in such a small space. Fortunately, though, Oxford actually does go out of its way to make it clear. Unfortunately, you omitted those extra details. Let's look at the bullet points clarifying the meaning: "indicating a desirable or expected state" "used to give … advice or suggestions" One of the examples it gives is, "by now pupils should be able to read with a large degree of independence." Few native English-speakers would read that sentence as saying that there is no option but for students to read with a large degree of independence. What it means is that such a level of reading is desirable or expected, but not required. In common usage, should is much weaker than must. Another good example: "I should exercise tonight" vs. "I must exercise tonight." The former almost sounds like the speaker knows it won't happen and feels guilty, whereas the latter sounds like the speaker is bound and determined to exercise. Don't you think?
saurik 14y ago
The way words are used in native languages and the connotations they bring up is not easily and fully explained by a 7 word blip in a dictionary... even then, this dictionary claims that must is "should (expressing necessity)": that parenthetical is key to the strength of "must". In fact, looking at it, you dropped half of the definition you pulled for "should" ("typically when criticizing someone's actions") and I will claim are mischaracterizing what an "obligation" is (just because I am obligated to do something, doesn't mean it is a necessity for me to do it). Putting this into practice, if you tell someone that they /should/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot, normal speakers of English will treat that drastically differently than if you instead say that they /must/ stop at the kiosk before parking in the lot; the former feels subjective while the latter feels objective. For a rather clear example of this: "you /must/ open the drawer before you [can] take things out of it" would go unquestioned, while "you /should/ open the drawer before you take things out of it" will cause many people to wonder what the alternative to opening the drawer could be. (edit: I see that chc made a similar complaint about your comment to me 10 minutes earlier, but I didn't see that comment as I was working on mine; I think mine has some value still with the examples, and a slightly different focus, so I will leave it in the thread as a reply.)