Follow-up to Conneg Poll

Hi Riccardo,

I’d like to follow-up on your comments on the poll for moving Conneg to CR.

You said:

> I think there is a valuable amount of work in the current CONNEG document, and my concerns are mostly on the readability of the document.
Can you please review the ED now at https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/conneg-by-ap/ as a fair bit of copy editing’s gone on so perhaps it’s now easier to read?

>  I am assuming that all the open issues marked as red notes will be deleted or replaced with green notes.
Yes, this has happened.

> I list some suggestions for improvements
> -The section about "Status of this document" should be updated. It still mentions Github issues and says the document is a working draft.
I have moved the document to CR.

> - Section 2.1: "this specification includes several functional profiles of it". I am not sure what 'it' stands for here.
The ‘it’ was the specification itself. The descriptions of Functional Profiles that were in 2.1 have been moved to 7.1 and more introductory wording has been added. Now that the section’s next to the full Functional Profiles description, hopefully it makes more sense.

> - In Figure 1: shouldn't cp:rrd be cnpr:rrd ? Cnpr is the only namespace defined.
Yes, thanks, corrected!

- Section 6.1 .. "the the roles of client" --> "the roles of client"
Corrected.

- Section 7.2.1.1, an introduction about what is going to be described in this section and why you are presenting the definition of HTTP link would probably help to keep the reader on track.
Section 7.2.11 you refer to is now Section 7.3.1.1. The work there is quite separate from Section 8. Link attributes. 7.3.1.1’s all about the HTTP Functional Profile’s implementation of the Alternate Representations model using Link headers. Section 8’s also about Link headers but for communicating profile URI / token mappings which is now introduced in 7.3.1.2. I think that a further tie-in between Sections 7.3.1.2  & Section 8 is needed so I will raise this with my co-editors this week.

So, I think that all your points except perhaps the last one are resolved, please could you confirm that?

Thanks for listing the points to address,

Nick