Clarify wording in multiple sections (from tbray)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

> Abstract: "Polling sucks"
>
> Who cares?  I disagree, think polling has scaled astoundingly well
> with the HTTP infrastructure, but the goodness of PuSH holds even if
> polling is in fact widely appropriate for lots of situations.  This
> could put people off and is orthogonal to the real issues, so I'd lose
> this assertion.

Noted.

> 2. Definitions/Event: "An event that's visible to multiple topics." Do
> you mean an event that causes updates in multiple topics?  If so, why
> not just say so?  I find "visible to" a bit confusing.

Noted.

> 4. Atom Details.  Why is this here?  The term "truncated" is a little
> weird, not used in Atom; in fact it's just a summary-only entry.   I
> guess, although it doesn't actually say, that this is a sample of what
> a publisher might send a hub, intentionally leaving things out (why?)
> and relying clients to follow the links for the <entry>s they're
> interested in.  Assuming this is what you mean, the section needs a
> little motivation, explaining what it's illustrating.  I.e. an
> introduction saying what this is an example of, and a bit more depth
> on why you might choose one way or another of approaching this.

Noted.

> 4. Atom details.  I quote:
>
>  <!-- Context entry that's meta-data only and not new. Implied because
> the
>      update time on this entry is before the //atom:feed/updated
> time. -->
>
> Huh? Sorry, I don't get what "Implied" means. Clearly, this isn't the
> entry that caused the feed updated time. But in principle you could
> have batched up a few entry updates into one publisher=>hub update, so
> the fact that the updated is different doesn't seem to imply anything
> to me.  What am I missing?

Indeed this piece has confused a few people. We need to ditch this.

> 5. Last para says you SHOULD use HTTPS (wouldn't TLS be a better
> term?) but the example above doesn't.

Noted.

> 6.1.2 in the first sentence, the word "already" surprised me.  Perhaps
> "successfully" might be a bit more straightforward?

Noted.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by bslatkin on 21 Oct 2009 at 9:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by bslatkin on 8 Feb 2010 at 11:47

• Added labels: spec0.3

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Addressed in 0.3 draft spec

Original comment by bslatkin on 9 Feb 2010 at 6:05

• Changed state: Fixed