Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP: make few minor stylistic improvements (#2127)

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:02:53 -0800

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127

-- Commit Summary --

  * HTTP: make few minor stylistic improvements

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-http.md (6)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:41:32 +0000 (UTC)

MikeBishop commented on this pull request.

I'm fine with the removal of the "However," but I'm not convinced the other two are improvements.

> @@ -1079,9 +1079,9 @@ priority.
 ### Placeholders
 
 In HTTP/2, certain implementations used closed or unused streams as placeholders
-in describing the relative priority of requests.  However, this created
-confusion as servers could not reliably identify which elements of the priority
-tree could safely be discarded. Clients could potentially reference closed
+in describing the relative priority of requests.  This created
+confusion as servers could not identify reliably which elements of the priority

I think this is placed correctly, and I feel like the change reads awkwardly.

> @@ -1079,9 +1079,9 @@ priority.
 ### Placeholders
 
 In HTTP/2, certain implementations used closed or unused streams as placeholders
-in describing the relative priority of requests.  However, this created
-confusion as servers could not reliably identify which elements of the priority
-tree could safely be discarded. Clients could potentially reference closed
+in describing the relative priority of requests.  This created
+confusion as servers could not identify reliably which elements of the priority
+tree could be safely discarded. Clients could potentially reference closed

I think you're right that this ought to move, but I think "could be discarded safely" reads better than either.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127#pullrequestreview-184306313

---

From: Dmitri Tikhonov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:40:48 -0800

@dtikhonov pushed 1 commit.

f4db3b973a6ba8cda79fa6814f97ac58d2a62700  Change adverb positions as suggested by Mike Bishop

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127/files/ff7a3791b182dac980bbc5a1b1a17e6794374f66..f4db3b973a6ba8cda79fa6814f97ac58d2a62700

---

From: Mike Bishop <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 10:44:16 -0800

Merged #2127 into master.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2127#event-2022314555