Subject: p3-payload proofreading

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:45:29 -0500

1) This read a bit awkward. I'm not sure if my suggestion retains the
original meaning.

OLD
There may exist multiple representations associated with a particular
response status.

NEW
It is possible for multiple representations to be associated with a
particular response status.

2) I think this means "*" for subtype, for example "text/*" and not
literally "type/*". (While we literally mean "*/*").  Maybe because
this comes directly after the ABNF it is fine?

The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges,
with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all
subtypes of that type.

3) Capitalize W?

OLD
Note: while the definition of Content-MD5

NEW
Note: While the definition of Content-MD5

-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:21:17 +0100

> particular response status.

The definitions of entity/representation/whatnot are on the TODO list 
anyway.

That being said, how about:

"Multiple representations may associated with a particular response status."

> with "*/*" indicating all media types and "type/*" indicating all

I'm not sure what this refers to; could you please supply some context?

> Note: While the definition of Content-MD5

Yup. I just did that for all parts 
(<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/756>).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:46:59 -0500

> "Multiple representations may associated with a particular response status."

"Multiple representations may be associated with a particular response status."

> I'm not sure what this refers to; could you please supply some context?

CURRENT TEXT from 5.1 Accept

To me, it reads like these would both be valid, even though only the
first one actually is? That is, "*/*" is an actual quote, where those
exact characters are used. And the other is not.

Accept: */*
Accept: type/*

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:57:23 +0100

Anthony Bryan wrote:
> ...

Ack :-)

> exact characters are used. And the other is not.

Well, if there was a type called "type", it would be valid.

It seems to me that

	"...and "type/*" indicating all subtypes of that type"

is sufficiently clear. Do you think something like

	"...and "X/*" indicating all subtypes of type X"

would make things clearer (this would be easier if IETF specs allowed 
font changes...).

BR, Julian

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:20:54 -0500

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> would make things clearer (this would be easier if IETF specs allowed font
> changes...).

Yes, that would be easier...

What about going from smaller to larger?

The asterisk "*" character is used to group media types into ranges,
with "X/*" indicating all subtypes of type X and "*/*" indicating all
media types.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:11:26 +0100

> with "X/*" indicating all subtypes of type X and "*/*" indicating all

I have to say that I'm not sure that there's a problem here.

What do others think?

Best regards, Julian