Comments on Primer

I asked a couple students I work with (who are new to LDP) to read over 
the primer.  I got these comments from one.  Hopefully they're helpful.

[and sorry for those of you for whom this is a second copy of this email]

         -- Sandro

Alexander J Lin <ajlin@mit.edu> writes:
>
>
> I really like the organization of the primer; it's pretty clear, 
> logical, and straightforward. The top-level organization where a 
> general example is followed by the more specific bug tracker example 
> is nice, and the organization of each section by HTTP verbs is 
> likewise illuminating.
>
>
> I'm a bit concerned that there might be too much detail in some 
> places. Some of the sections feel a bit heavy (like "LDP concepts in a 
> glance"), and some of the notes include information that is helpful 
> but may not be strictly necessary (like the note in 3.1). I'm not sure 
> if that would benefit or confuse the readers; I guess that depends on 
> who is reading it.
>
>
> Also, the syntax switching thing is awesome.
>
>
> The other things are mostly grammatical:
>
>
>  *
>
>     Abstract: “the notion of an LDP resource, the LDP container,and how”
>
>  *
>
>     You might want to split the examples in the abstract off into a
>     second sentence
>
>  *
>
>     Status: “as anythingother than a work in progress”
>
>  *
>
>     The sentence in the introduction starting with “By naming real
>     world entities” is somewhat awkward
>
>  *
>
>     Are the links in the introduction supposed to go to the
>     bibliography and not the links in the bibliography?
>
>  *
>
>     Section 2.1: "In this example, it supports the[list], andPATCH
>     HTTP Verbs"
>
>  *
>
>     Section 2.3: “Refer to theresource to be created”
>
>   * In the acknowledgements: “We wouldalso like to thank”
>
>