Use of "in order" might be misunderstood as an ordering requirement (2)

[gorryfair]

There are other uses of "in order" that the editors may like to address to avoid potential misunderstanding:

/Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions in order to properly form a version negotiation packet./ ... seem like /Servers SHOULD be able to read longer connection IDs from other QUIC versions to properly form a version negotiation packet./

[MikeBishop]

"in order to" seems like a well-known construction, so I'm not concerned about its existence. Your rewording loses the implication of "SHOULD... because you'll need to...."

Though I see your point that this sentence could be parsed as "reading in order" being the thing servers SHOULD be able to do. Perhaps "In order to properly form X, servers SHOULD Y"?

[MikeBishop]

Also, this seems to be the same sentence as #4038?

[gorryfair]

That works for me - starting with the construction seems clear. Gorry

…

On 20 Aug 2020, at 19:11, Mike Bishop ***@***.***> wrote:  "in order to" seems like a well-known construction, so I'm not concerned about its existence. Your rewording loses the implication of "SHOULD... because you'll need to...." Though I see your point that this sentence could be parsed as "reading in order" being the thing servers SHOULD be able to do. Perhaps "In order to properly form X, servers SHOULD Y"? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[gorryfair]

The new PR appears to have all the in orders in good order then!