I want from the editors either a confirmation that the wording in
section 5 was really what was intended (i.e. that a representation is
*inherently* whatever you get back from a GET, as opposed to what it
would be according to some ordinary-language meaning of
"representation"), or a correction of the kind I suggested.
The reply I got was not from an editor; it was from someone who didn't
carefully read what I wrote. The blog post, and my reply to the reply,
were in my opinion redundant with the original post and not suitable
matter for discussion on that list. I didn't see this kind of
belabored exposition as helping most readers of the list, and
especially not the editors, who I expected probably understood what I
was saying the first time.
I am still expecting to hear something back from the editors, since
they've been pretty good at eventually responding to questions like
this. They're probably just overwhelmed with more important issues.