Don't rely on the HTTP/1.1 Messaging specification to define "message"

[mnot]

Fixes #311

[MikeBishop]

Assuming I'm reading the tags right, you mark this as a "defined term," but just drop the link to the definition. I don't feel like that helps, since you now have a dangling defined term.

[mnot]

@MikeBishop as I said in #311, this is the most minimal approach. To do more, I think we need to rename 4. Header and Trailer Fields to something like "Messages", and expand its introduction accordingly.

Any thoughts about that?

[MikeBishop]

It seems like most of the content you'd want for defining a message is already there in 2.1:

Nevertheless, a common abstraction is that a message includes some form of envelope/framing, a potential set of named fields up front (a header section), a potential body, and a potential following set of named fields (a trailer section).

Rearranging text a little to put that definition (and make it a definition, rather than "a common abstraction") by the introduction of the term "message" seems like it would work without having to rearchitect Section 4.

[mnot]

@MikeBishop x:dfn denotes use of a defined term, not a primary definition.

[mnot]

@royfielding ?