p5: editorial suggestions

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

* 2.1 "A byte range operation MAY specify..."   This is the only place "operation" is used in the document; it should either be defined, or replaced by another term.

* 3.1 "...and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response."  This is a bit informal...

* 3.1 "If all of the preconditions are true, the server supports the Range header field for the target resource, and the specified range(s) are invalid or unsatisfiable, the server SHOULD send a 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) response." 

Yet 4.4 says: "because servers are free to ignore Range, many implementations will simply respond with 200 (OK) if the requested ranges
are invalid or not satisfiable."

I think sometimes responding with 200 is the right thing to do here sometimes, and so we shouldn't put a requirement against it. We could either remove the SHOULD, or qualify it with something that allows the server to make a judgement call.

* 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.

* 4.3 last paragraph places a requirement on clients to "record" sets of ranges; how exactly do they meet this requirement? Terminology seems strange.



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/