Re: Definition of "should" seems inconsistent with idea of "deprecated"

David Gibson <[email protected]> Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:33:07 +1100

Newsgroups	org.kernel.vger.devicetree-spec
Message-ID	<ZTG8szcUghDU12ZZ@zatzit>

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".

> 
>   It just seems like that's giving off mixed messages.
> 
> rday
> 

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)