AB: Ian has created a LC Disposition of Comments document: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/xbl2/disposition-of-comments?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plain
AB: does this meet the minimal requirements for tracking the comments?
AvK: should they be in a HTML format that is linkable?
DJ: There aren't really any clear requirements. However, we've been asked to do the following:
DJ: 1. Link to the original comment message
DJ: 2. Link to the official WG response message (or messages)
DJ: 3. Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are happy/unhappy with the response)
DJ: Ian's DOC has most of this info, but TimBL and Steve would appreciate it in HTML I think (with the info above).
DJ: it should include the
comment, the response from the editor, the response (if any)
from the person who commented, and the group response
... and the status
DJ: management was a consistant way to track comments, but there is currently no standard
AB: maybe we need to put that to upper management
DJ: Hixies responses don't
include a WG response
... there may be cases that the WG does not agree with what
hixie wants.
... so we need to work with him on that.
... in most cases hixie has done what the WG would want
AB: since all the key people in the WG that are insterested in XBL are here now, so we should respond to as many of the public comments as possible from the WG perspective
MC: agreed
<ArtB> ACTION: Art notify Hixie about the 3 requirements for LC comments that Dean identified: 1) Link to the original comment message; 2) Link to the official WG response message; 3) Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are happy/unhappy with the response). [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-waf-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-46 - Notify Hixie about the 3 requirements for LC comments that Dean identified: 1) Link to the original comment message; 2) Link to the official WG response message; 3) Link to the acknowledgment from the commenter (that they are happy/unhappy with the response). [on Arthur Barstow - due 2006-11-02].
MC: is HTML5 being mentioned going to be a problem?
DJ: it will be in when it is mentioned in contexts that are normative
<ArtB> ACTION: Dean submit a formal comment against the XBL2 LCWD regarding the HTML5 reference. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/10/26-waf-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-47 - Submit a formal comment against the XBL2 LCWD regarding the HTML5 reference. [on Dean Jackson - due 2006-11-02].
AB: lets start with the
disposition of comments
... I've noticed that Ian has also included comments that were
raised on the XBL mailing list
DJ: that is not a problem, we can include them as a last call comment
AB: are we required to respond to
those
... ?
DJ: no, we are not required to
respond, but I am happy to except them as comments
... it makes sense to accept them as comments
... i worded it on the XBL spec that we will not track comments
on the XBL-dev list
AB: going through the comments
AvK: I don't this is needed
AB: comment 1 is about
examples
... seems to be addressed
<dino_> DJ: We're required to make an official response as the WG. Even though Ian has responded, he wasn't representing the WG (whether we agree or not). We have to follow the rules.
AB: WG agrees with Ian's comments, but we'll not make an official WG reply
<ArtB> AB: ... because the comment was sent to the moz-xbl-tech mail list
AB: comment 2 on typos in
examples
... for comment 2 the WG agrees with Ian's response
DJ: we need to get a reply from the commenter
AB: the working group will not
respond if changes are editorial
... comment 2 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled
... Comment 3 - related to XML NS and XBL....
... dean will write an email response to commenter asking him
if the changes that hixie made are acceptable or not
DJ: sent!
AB: Comment 3 - the working group
approves how these comments were handled (but does not yet have
a response from the commentor)
... Commnet 4 - from Karl "was there anything that the working
group did not think about?"
... Comment 4 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled and approval has been recieved by the
commentor
... Comment 5 - regarding terminology
... status is that has been rejected on technical grounds
... Comment 5 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled and approval has been recieved by the commentor.
No further action required.
no further action is also required for 1,2,3,4
AB: Comment 6 - regarding the
abstract
... Comment 6 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled and approval has been recieved by the commentor.
No further action required.
... Comment 7 - better introduction
... Comment 7 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled and approval has been recieved by the commentor.
No further action required.
... comment 8 - comment regarding extensibility
... Status "not sure how to proceed"
... There does not seem to be a response from the commentor
DJ: I like Hixies repsonse to this comment.
AB: Comment 8 - the working group approves how these comments were handled and but a response it needed by the commentor. DJ to sent a response.
DJ: sent a response to Karl regarding comment 8.
AB: Comment 9 - XML id
issue
... not a new issue
... karl asks, if there any reason for not using XML id?
... Comment 9 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. A response of approval has not been
sent by the commentor.
DJ: Has sent a request to the commentor to send his approval.
AB: Comment 10 - def of shadow
tree is obscure
... Comment 10 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. But a response of approval has not
been sent by the commentor.
... the working group agrees, however to leave this commet
OPEN
... Pending a response from Karl
... Comment 11 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. But a response of approval has not
been sent by the commentor.
DJ: email sent to Karl
AB: Comment 12 - terminology issues
<dino_> Ian's DoC is missing Bjoern's response on Comment 12
<dino_> http://www.w3.org/mid/5j70j2hg7ncb3l3aojbr7oa5bpvcnhph50@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
<dino_> and that response needs to be responded to.
<dino_> This means the status on comment 12 isn't up to date.
AB: Comment 13 - XBL1 to XBL2
relationship
... regarding backward compatability with XBL 1
... Comment 13 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. No followup is needed.
... Comment 14 - regarding parsing mechanisms, selectors, regex
and XPath...
... Comment 13 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. However, no response has been
received by the commentor.
DJ: sent and email
above refers to comment 14
AB: Comment 15 - editorial
changes
... Comment 15 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. Commentor has approved the
response. no further action needed.
... Comment 16 - no definition of "already loaded"
... Comment 16 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. But commentor has not approved the
response..
DJ: sent message
AB: Comment 17 - regarding XML
Events
... This one should be left often, as we are waiting for more
data from Karl
... Comment 18 - @namespace issue
... Open until the error in the CSS NS spec is fixed
... Comment 19 - question about the term "semantic-free"
elements
... comment 19 might be missing some of the URIs
... yes, it is missing some URIs
... comment 19 to remain OPEN
... Comment 20 - selectors
... comment 20 is missing URIs
... status should change to "no change required, awaiting
response from the commentor"
... Comment 20 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. But commentor has not approved the
response..
... Comment 21
... the working group approves how these comments were handled
by the editor. this comment can be considered closed
... Comment 22
the working group approves how these comments were handled by the editor. A response from the commentor has not been received. An email has been sent to the commentor
AB: Comment 23 - Comments about the abstract
the working group approves how these comments were handled by the editor. A response from the commentor has not been received. Jose will send a comment.
AB: Comment 24 - confusion over
the word "ignored"
... Comment 24 - the working group approves how these comments
were handled by the editor. A response has been received from
the commentor. this comment can be considered closed.
... that is the last comment
... so far