Re: Editorial Issues: Section 4.2.2

[James M Snell <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Martin Thomson
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hey James,
>
>
> On 24 April 2013 10:11, James M Snell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Recommend reworking this to:
>>
>>   The following fields MUST be present in all HTTP requests:
>>
>>   ":method":  the HTTP method for this request (e.g.  "GET", "POST",
>>   "HEAD", etc) ([HTTP-p2], Section 4)
>>
>>   ":path":  the request-target for this URI with "/"
>>   prefixed (see [HTTP-p1], Section 3.1.1).  For example, for
>>   "http://www.google.com/search?q=dogs" the path would be
>>   "/search?q=dogs". [[anchor26: what forms of the HTTPbis
>>   request-target are allowed here?]]
>>
>>   ":host":  the host and optional port portions (see [RFC3986],
>>   Section 3.2) of the URI for this request (e.g. "www.google.com:
>>   1234").  This header field is the same as the HTTP 'Host'
>>   header field ([HTTP-p1], Section 5.4).
>>
>>   ":scheme":  the scheme portion of the URI for this request (e.g.
>>   "https")
>
> Feel free to send a pull request for this.  I see no reason not to
> make this sort of change.
>
> There are a lot of less obvious edits of this nature.  From my
> perspective, there are too many to fix at once.  For instance, the
> entirety of Section 5 needs to be moved to more relevant locations.
>
> There's no reason why you can't just raise an issue or pull request
> for editorial stuff that bugs you.
>

I can submit pull requests. Is there a specific process the editors
would like re: pull requests? For instance, posting a note here on
list when a pull request is submitted so that everyone can be aware of
the suggested change?

- James