- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:39:50 +1000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Strictly editorial feedback on the current p2: * 1. Introduction doesn't read smoothly. I'm happy to make a proposal if necessary. * 2 "The target of each HTTP request" s/each/a/ * 3.1 "The following header fields are defined to convey representation metadata:" This reads as if it's a closed set. Suggest removing "are defined to". * 3.1.1 a more appropriate section title would be "Processing Representation Data" or "Processing Representation Metadata" (depending on intent) * 3.1.2.1 "Frequently, the representation is stored in coded form, transmitted directly, and only decoded by the recipient." Saying "final recipient" would be clearer. * 3.1.4.1 "...by other means (not defined by HTTP)..." --> "...by other means (not defined by this document)..." (two occurrences) * 3.4.1. "When content negotiation preferences are sent by the user agent in a request in order to encourage..." The use of "in order" is slightly confusing here, esp. to a non-native speaker; we don't want to imply that they're ordered. Suggest dropping "in order". * 4.1 Last paragraph - "A client can send conditional request header fields..." Suggest prefixing with "For example," and moving up to be after the first paragraph. * 4.3.5 "action seems okay" is too informal. * 4.3.7 "The OPTIONS method requests information about the communication options available on the request/response chain identified by the effective request URI." This can be misread; suggest: "The OPTIONS method requests information about the communications options available for the target resource, either at the origin server or an intervening intermediary." * 5.3 should be a subsection of 3.4.1; there are already a number of headers defined in section 3, and it's better to have all of the conneg material together. * 6.5.8 "...could not be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the resource." --> "... with the current state of the target resource." Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 07:40:16 UTC