Proposal: change following to informative

The following are (I assert ;-) re-statements of requirements levied by 
base specs, rather than new requirements added by LDP.  Actually all 3 
editors agreed on this list after taking independent passes, so I'm making 
it a single proposal. 

If you object (-1) to any of the listed sections being changed, please 
provide the specific list in your response and we'll simply treat those 
separately. 

If you do not object (+0 or +1), either save it for a WG poll on one of 
the next meetings or (if you're sending regrets for that meeting) email to 
get your poll vote in early. 

We'd still keep the text in LDP, just remove the 2119 styling, mark 
informative, and be careful to refer to the originating spec in each case. 
 In part, this will address some of Mark Baker's comments.

4.2.6 - http 
4.2.7 - http 
4.3.4 EXCEPT for final sentence ... TimBL's comments cover what's left 
(the final sentence), and that's a separate proposal for change (not yet 
queued)  - http 
4.6.1 - http 
4.6.2 - http 
4.8.1 - http
5.2.2 - http 
5.2.6 - rdf
5.2.7 - rdf (ONLY the portion after the comma; the first clause says 
normative)
5.2.9 the MAY >> can; already refers to WebArch
5.3.1 - rdf (ONLY sentence two - any subject)
5.4.2 - http
5.4.6 ONLY sentence two - http
5.4.10 - atompub


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario