Re: [dxwg] Antoine's conneg doc edits

1. Resolved with Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/67b483a9b1229a076c04945c4c06c02fc4aae241

2. Karen's commits has fixed it

3. You've re-opened Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/379 so we will address that there

4. I have moved all the inline descriptions of the other PROF docts to the end of the Introduction, so Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/67b483a9b1229a076c04945c4c06c02fc4aae241 also

5. It really is context as it's telling you what the limits of the discussion here are *in the context of* the other HTTP headers

6. Perhaps you're right but, at the moment, we have no were else to put this information. Can you make a structural suggestion?

7. Again, this is context in that this subsection is telling you what the limits of the advice here is in relation to other HTTP methods of more general conneg

8. *"...there's such a long introduction..."* sorry but that's a bit hard to deal with! Let's wait for a few other other edits to settle down and see if this is still an issue.

        **"it's strange to have 5.2.2 not saying what the server should do"**

        This has been flagged for attention with Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/588 in the document

9. This has been addressed by other text edits to this section since this issue was raised

10. Addressed by Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/798f292f561a7dd4e924e6c49ab93343e98e13f0

11. Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/591 has been created to address this specifically as it's been noticed by a couple of people now

12. Addressed by Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/095a2f5bb3296d5bd3f65e73fe34b9735bd64603

13 Addressed by Commit https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/commit/99d6a438539bda9dbc3bed1da7898a25e59ce886 and by merging the two sets of references to these other HTTP headers into one paragraph in the Introduction

14. The use of `OPTIONS` was raised by a reviewer and there is an Issue now to address this: Issue https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/510. Note that the description of the Issue says that `OPTIONS` use is discouraged so we will likely not end up using `OPTIONS`

*more coming*

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/575#issuecomment-438928204 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2018 06:04:29 UTC