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

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