p2: Purely editorial feedback

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 20 April 2013 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC3A21F88D8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDxrzrXjrkf9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17A021F89A5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTSPE-0000L8-7D for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:40:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:40:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTSPE-0000L8-7D@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSPA-0000KP-Pd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:40:16 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UTSPA-0005DZ-7E for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:40:16 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89F1E509B6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:39:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C8F5647-EC0C-4EE2-81AF-8B1F340E3D24@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:39:50 +1000
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.364, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UTSPA-0005DZ-7E bca7c087f0efb320151280ee82256220
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: p2: Purely editorial feedback
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5C8F5647-EC0C-4EE2-81AF-8B1F340E3D24@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17400
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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/