[xiph-rtp] Updated drafts please review

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

Luca Barbato wrote:

>>3.1.1. Last sentence: It is up to the ...
>>    
>>
>
>Explain the problem
>  
>
The current sentence reads: "Is up to the client provide a minimal size 
comment header to the decoder if required by the implementation." A few 
words are missing. It should obviously be: "It is up to the client to 
provide ...".

Another one in 2.1: "and shown in Figure Figure 1."

>This way looks better?
>  
>
Sort of, at least I understood what is ment. I missed the discussion (if 
there has been any) on supporting compressed (bzip or gzip) headers. Is 
it really necessary to add such complexity to the clients? Is the 
compression used being defined through the URL ending or should it be 
specified in e.g. the content type header if using HTTP retrieval?

>>There seem to be a generally high number of punctuation mistakes in the
>>text and I am not able to follow the logic behind the capitalization of
>>specific words ...
>>    
>>
>
>Please point the cases and I'll try to fix them.
>  
>
I'm not a native speaker, so this may be completely wrong. They are not 
the only mistakes I think are included, but I really have no time spell 
checking the entire text:

1.

Vorbis is a general purpose perceptual audio codec ... A comma is 
missing between purpose and perceptual.

3.

Unlike other mainstream audio codecs Vorbis has no statically ... Comma 
between codecs and Vorbis
... of a comment header packet which gives  ... Comma between packet and 
which

Through sections 3.x, several expressions are written capitalized 
without obvious meaning (this may of course be some odd RFC guideline 
though): "Vorbis Packed Configuration", "Configuration", "Packed 
Configuration", "Vorbis Packed Configuration Packets", "Ident", "Packed 
Configuration Payload", "Fragment", "Packed configuration" (here capital 
P, minuscule c) and so on.

Tor