Re: [dxwg] Antoine's conneg doc edits

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer and having already fixed many of my issues. And sorry that I have not reacted earlier.
A detailed reaction follows for the first 15 issues.

1. OK

2. OK (but there's now an incomplete sentence just before it!)

3. OK let's discuss!

4. Partly solved. To me the IETF ID (and issue 380) is about a PROF document, even if it's not in W3C space, and thus doesn't belong to related work. It is *(y)our* work!

5. Can still be improved, but I can live with it. To me the argumentation of one's choices wrt. context is not "pure" context anymore. This is why I thought the flow was strange. It could have been moved elsewhere, maybe even just at the end of the context section.

6. I would suggest to put in in 6.2. In fact if the introduction to 6.2 was shorter (as per my point 8) I'm sure it would fit quite well there! At least better than in the context.

7. Not OK, but I can live with it. You answer would be very fine if the document had not introduced definitions (and thus assumptions) about some of these notions in an earlier section.

8. Fair enough, let's wait then - and maybe only come back to it in the next version.

9. OK

10. Not OK. I was actually not arguing for replacing MAY by MUST or anything else. In fact the issue still remain with a MUST. Essentially I think the sentence "The list profiles request MUST be either an independent request or part of another realization's request." doesn't not specifying anything. Everything is either independent or part of another request, isn't it? In this case the sentence is a mere clarification, not something with a strong recommendation content, and thus use of RDF2119 upper-case is not appropriate.
But maybe I don't understand what's at stake in this sentence.

11. OK let's discuss there, then. But this issue should perhaps be referenced in the text? It would be great if we can get some feedback during the review process...

12. OK

13. OK

14. Not OK. I had seen issue 510, it was in fact why I've raised my concern. My suggestion was merely editorial: if there's a good chance that OPTIONS is not going to be used, then it doesn't look great if the section starts with it. The HTTP Link subsection should be first.

15. OK, though it raised another question (but I'm fine with the examples being published as they are now)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by aisaac
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-440056620 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 21:58:51 UTC