-
Dave
jonasw, I'm being slow on the agenda - it's just PR 681 and ProtoXEP fsn I can see, is that right?
-
Dave
jonasw, Oh... Wait. We're not meeting today are we? Never mind!
-
Link Mauve
#682 will also need council for half of it, fyi.
-
Link Mauve
Author for the other one.
-
Link Mauve
But they are the same change.
-
jonasw
Link Mauve, > + <p>Alternatively, the proxy may be exposed directly on the Requester’s server, in which case it use Service Discovery on this domain, like for every previous disco#items results.</p> -EGRAMMAR
-
jonasw
can you fix that pls?
-
Link Mauve
There is a grammar issue in this sentence?
-
Dave
Link Mauve, "it *can* use"? "it *must* use"?
-
jonasw
at least "it use" -> "it uses"
-
Link Mauve
Oh. >_<
-
Dave
Link Mauve, Or "it use*s*".
-
jonasw
but I think there should be a verb inbetween
-
Link Mauve
Should probably.
-
jonasw
(it is in both commits btw)
-
jonasw
why not MUST?
-
Link Mauve
Ah no, “needs”.
-
Link Mauve
Hmm…
-
Link Mauve
(Yes, this was a copy/paste.)
-
jonasw
needs to then✎ -
Link Mauve
jonasw, abuse of 2119 in every sentence wasn’t the trend back when 0065 was written.
-
jonasw
"needs to use" then ✏
-
Dave
"RFC 2119 in not a stick with which to beat people", as Pete Resnick once said.
-
Dave
(In response to a later review of what became https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4469, when Randy Gellens noticed it didn't use RFC 2119 at all)
-
Link Mauve
Fixed the grammar.