13:21:23 RRSAgent has joined #bpwg 13:21:23 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc 13:21:25 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:21:25 Zakim has joined #bpwg 13:21:27 Zakim, this will be BPWG 13:21:27 ok, trackbot; I see MWI_BPWG()9:30AM scheduled to start in 9 minutes 13:21:28 Meeting: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group Teleconference 13:21:28 Date: 06 October 2009 13:30:04 zakim, code? 13:30:04 the conference code is 2794 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 tel:+33.4.89.06.34.99 tel:+44.117.370.6152), jo 13:30:16 Regrets: tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan 13:30:47 MWI_BPWG()9:30AM has now started 13:30:54 +??P0 13:30:59 zakim, ??P0 is me 13:30:59 +francois; got it 13:31:08 EdC has joined #bpwg 13:31:09 zakim, who is making noise? 13:31:20 francois, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 13:31:22 +jo 13:32:12 SeanP has joined #bpwg 13:32:22 Regrets: tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan 13:32:27 Chair: jo 13:32:34 +EdC 13:32:43 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html 13:33:13 PhilA2 has joined #bpwg 13:33:20 -francois 13:33:22 +Phil_Archer 13:33:57 +??P0 13:34:00 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 13:34:00 cgi-irc has joined #bpwg 13:34:17 +francois 13:34:17 brucel has joined #bpwg 13:34:26 +SeanP 13:34:32 zakim, mute me 13:34:32 francois should now be muted 13:34:48 +adam 13:36:21 scribe: Phil 13:36:25 scribe: PhilA 13:36:56 Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has gone to Trinidad 13:37:45 [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech] 13:37:47 .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some observers from T&T 13:37:53 hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps! 13:37:58 from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of Trinidad and Tobago 13:38:00 13:38:11 welcome to our observers 13:38:15 tnx 13:38:38 Topic: Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London 13:39:10 Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP and one on CT leaving half a day for admin 13:39:23 .. if you have any other agenda items let me know 13:40:04 Topic: Clock changes 13:40:22 PhilA: Europe will be 31/10 13:40:28 .. (last Sat in October) 13:40:31 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179 13:40:38 1 November 2009 13:41:01 Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time 13:41:10 Topic: Update on BP 2. 13:41:13 zakim, unmute me 13:41:13 francois should no longer be muted 13:41:20 Jo: We're on target for transition this week? 13:41:28 Francois: Yes - should be later today 13:42:01 Jo: Anything else on BP 2? 13:42:18 Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the 'cleaning up stuff' 13:42:29 Topic: Addendum 13:43:01 FD: Philipp's comment is that the name addendum suggests that we're adding more normative content - what it needs is something more like what it is 13:43:14 Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence 13:43:20 +??P7 13:43:38 francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that we're extending it which we're really not. 13:43:43 zakim, ??p7 is jeffs 13:43:43 +jeffs; got it 13:43:52 zakim, ??P7 is jeffs 13:43:52 I already had ??P7 as jeffs, jeffs 13:44:10 zakim, mute jeffs 13:44:10 jeffs should now be muted 13:44:29 Jo: SO what shall we do Francois? 13:44:41 -jeffs 13:45:03 Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo? 13:45:30 +??P7 13:46:12 zakim, ??P7 is jeffs 13:46:13 +jeffs; got it 13:46:20 Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation? 13:46:32 Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance? 13:46:53 Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again? 13:47:06 Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BO in a normative way 13:47:20 s/BO/BP 13:48:09 Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it clear that it's not normative? 13:48:26 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title 13:48:33 Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the beginning of the document? 13:48:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the document 13:49:16 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the document because the document contains more than just evaluation of conformance to Best Practices 13:49:20 -> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923 Current Draft 13:49:37 PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best Practices 13:49:56 Jo: Sahll we change the abstract to be more clear 13:50:04 s/Sahll/Shall/ 13:50:04 current abstract: 13:50:08 This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 [MWBP] by providing additional evaluations of conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of Best Practice statements. 13:50:14 proposed abstract: 13:50:30 This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0 [MWBP] by providing additional non-normative evaluations of conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of Best Practice statements. 13:51:08 Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP 13:51:26 Is the word "clarification" what is missing? 13:51:51 -francois 13:52:53 ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it 13:52:54 Created ISSUE-300 - Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it ; please complete additional details at http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit . 13:53:03 +francois 13:54:04 Topic: CT Guidelines 13:54:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ List of last call comments 13:54:25 Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions. Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds 13:54:43 Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication 13:54:53 Francois: No, it's going to ship today 13:55:39 Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back to the CT landscape and test suite 13:56:21 JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo 13:56:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025 LC-2025 13:56:40 EdC: I don't even remember writing that one... 13:58:03 Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there 13:58:50 Jo: This dates back over a year 13:59:10 .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to the points over the last year 13:59:26 EdC: Yes 13:59:55 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points more than it did at least 14:00:22 RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points more than it did at least 14:00:38 Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker 14:00:41 q+ 14:00:51 ack fr 14:01:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 LC-2043 14:01:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 LC-2043 14:02:28 Jo: He's saying it needs to be guidelines and not a protocol. I think we've done that and followed a number of very useful comments he made. 14:03:11 Jo: It's resolved yes 14:03:17 .. and to use existing text 14:03:18 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing proposed response 14:03:29 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing proposed response 14:03:41 Jo: LC-2097 14:03:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097 LC-2097 14:04:20 Jo: That's on OPEF - Open Pluggabel Edge Services. Comment from Internet Architecture Board. We should make reference to the ?? discussion which we have done 14:04:35 .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great length 14:04:41 zakim, who is on the phone? 14:04:41 On the phone I see jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, ??P0, SeanP, adam, jeffs, francois 14:05:10 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing proposed response 14:05:20 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing proposed response 14:05:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089 LC-2089 14:05:33 Jo: Next up is LC-2089 14:06:06 Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT must take place 14:06:14 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing comment 14:06:22 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing comment 14:06:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065 LC-2065 14:06:44 Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column 14:07:08 .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already 14:07:26 Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added an appendix 14:07:36 .. no need for a formal resolution. 14:07:40 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018 LC-2018 14:07:43 .. move on to LC-2018 14:07:53 .. from Michael McQueen 14:08:08 Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the title of the document 14:08:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050 LC-2050 14:08:16 .. LC-2050 14:08:21 From Eduardo 14:08:43 We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some definitions around 14:08:51 +DKA 14:08:58 ok with me. 14:09:28 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067 LC-2067 14:09:28 Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes 14:09:34 DKA has joined #bpwg 14:09:53 .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD statements 14:09:59 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003 LC-2003 14:10:01 LC-2003 14:10:05 .. from Luca P 14:10:23 WE have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open for discussion 14:10:50 .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do what it does. Just the output 14:10:52 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034 LC-2034 14:10:57 LC-2034 from Mark Baker 14:11:22 .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed is "we don't see any reason why" 14:11:37 So already resolved... 14:11:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019 LC-2019 14:11:44 LC-2019 14:11:49 From Eduardo again 14:12:07 We have already resolved partial on that 14:12:18 s/WE/We/ 14:12:22 ok. 14:12:25 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044 LC-2044 14:12:26 LC-2044 14:12:35 Resolved partial on already 14:12:57 -jeffs 14:13:04 The comment was that there is no way of determining whether the request is coming from a Web browser or not. WE did change the text a little as he's right. 14:13:10 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069 LC-2069 14:13:18 LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes 14:13:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996 LC-1996 14:13:32 Removed the normative statement on web browser detection 14:13:37 LC-1996 from Luca 14:13:42 Have resolved no already 14:13:56 Although we comment that we have altered the relevant section a lot already 14:14:42 Francois: there are more similar comments 14:15:19 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071 LC-2071 14:15:57 This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved no on this 14:16:38 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 LC-2072 14:16:46 LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes 14:17:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 LC-2073 14:17:15 LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion 14:17:53 Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now? 14:18:12 francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs are the same website or not? 14:18:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 LC-2049 14:18:20 LC-2049 from Eduardo 14:18:24 Resolved no 14:18:41 EdC has left #bpwg 14:19:00 EdC has joined #bpwg 14:19:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017 LC-2017 14:19:16 We have resolved no on this 14:19:41 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036 LC-2036 14:19:54 Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one 14:20:29 Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback 14:20:31 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 LC-2053 14:21:11 This one is open 14:21:16 From Eduardo 14:21:29 We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid. 14:21:32 EdC: Hang on... 14:21:38 Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome diversion from the excitement http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/ 14:22:50 EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But... 14:23:55 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that we hope the current version of the document addresses this 14:24:29 EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close it 14:24:49 EdC: happy with the resolution 14:25:00 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that we hope the current version of the document addresses this 14:25:21 LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate response for this one 14:25:25 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005 LC-2005 14:25:37 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 LC-2038 14:25:38 LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial 14:25:49 Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines 14:25:56 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054 LC-2054 14:26:06 LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already 14:26:22 Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it 14:26:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074 LC-2074 14:26:30 Jo: LC-2074 from MNot 14:26:35 we have resolved no to this 14:26:45 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075 LC-2075 14:26:45 .. again about re-issuing requests 14:27:06 EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely messes up some applications 14:27:23 Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people 14:27:32 .. we have already resolved no on 2074 14:27:56 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037 LC-2037 14:28:01 LC-2037 from Mark bater 14:28:14 We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now 14:28:20 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076 LC-2076 14:28:21 LC-2076 from MNOt 14:28:42 .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various items of text 14:28:45 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039 LC-2039 14:28:52 LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes 14:29:01 .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed 14:29:03 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 LC-1997 14:29:07 LC-2097 14:29:21 s/2097/1997/ 14:29:25 from Luca - we have rsolved no 14:29:34 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046 LC-2046 14:29:36 LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes 14:29:53 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014 LC-2014 14:29:54 LC-2014 from Sean own have resolved partial 14:30:01 s/own/Owen/ 14:30:10 we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope 14:30:16 LC-2077 from MNot 14:30:18 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077 LC-2077 14:30:20 Resolved no 14:30:35 rrsagent, make logs public 14:30:50 We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to sort it out 14:30:52 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006 LC-2006 14:31:02 We have resolved no for LC-2006 14:31:04 s/bater/Baker 14:31:06 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 LC-2040 14:31:10 LC-2040 from Mark Baker 14:31:16 we need to resolve this one 14:31:49 Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ... 14:32:07 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed response 14:32:21 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed response 14:32:28 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078 LC-2078 14:32:40 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007 LC-2007 14:32:40 LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the doc 14:32:51 LC-2007 which we have resolved yes 14:33:16 Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that referred to server behaviour 14:33:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079 LC-2079 14:33:24 LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to 14:33:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080 LC-2080 14:33:32 Moved into informative section 14:33:40 LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes 14:33:59 LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin servers 14:34:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041 LC-2041 14:34:05 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010 LC-2010 14:34:12 LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial 14:34:15 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011 LC-2011 14:34:28 LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes 14:34:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009 LC-2009 14:34:37 LC-2009 - resolved yes 14:34:42 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020 LC-2020 14:34:48 LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no 14:35:08 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045 LC-2045 14:35:15 LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial 14:35:25 LC-2091 from Luca 14:35:26 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 LC-2091 14:35:28 REsolved no 14:35:43 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:35:43 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html PhilA2 14:36:00 Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we needed to add text although we agree with the point 14:36:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082 LC-2082 14:36:11 LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes 14:36:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042 LC-2042 14:36:30 LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point 14:36:42 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083 LC-2083 14:36:48 LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we resolved no 14:37:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084 LC-2084 14:37:18 LC-2084 resolved partial 14:37:25 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 LC-2090 14:37:28 LC-2019 from Luca we resolved no 14:37:39 s/LC-2019/2090/ 14:37:52 LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no 14:37:57 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998 LC-1998 14:38:05 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999 LC-1999 14:38:12 LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no 14:38:31 EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct 14:38:50 actually we do endorse the heuristics 14:39:08 Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from the reply 14:39:14 .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one 14:39:49 Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content 14:39:57 LC-2048 from Eduardo 14:40:36 Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't actually formulated a proposed response to this 14:41:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E 14:41:58 RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E 14:42:07 LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no 14:42:30 Jo: mumbles on a bit... 14:42:41 LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca 14:42:46 Jo: no text for this one 14:43:04 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000 LC-2000 14:43:07 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 LC-2022 14:43:16 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002 LC-2002 14:43:45 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other than those listed in Appendix E 14:43:56 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other than those listed in Appendix E 14:44:14 Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes etc. 14:44:29 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052 LC-2052 14:44:32 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021 LC-2021 14:44:36 LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes 14:44:53 LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial 14:45:46 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 LC-2022 14:45:49 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023 LC-2023 14:45:55 LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo 14:46:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085 LC-2085 14:46:14 LC-2085 from Tlr 14:46:19 Link re-writing 14:46:46 Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here? 14:47:59 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments and have added textt reflect your concerns 14:48:22 RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments and have added textt reflect your concerns 14:48:35 LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo 14:49:00 Oh, maybe we do have a resolution 14:49:08 ...We're going to resolve yes 14:49:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028 LC-2028 14:49:49 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:50:00 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:50:09 LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending 14:50:21 Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment 14:50:23 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029 LC-2029 14:50:28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:50:36 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:50:45 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030 LC-2030 14:50:48 LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes 14:50:57 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:51:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:51:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html PhilA2 14:51:07 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:51:16 LC-2015 from Sean Owen 14:51:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015 LC-2015 14:51:37 Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones 14:51:42 It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG! 14:51:48 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:51:56 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:52:10 LC-2031 from Eduardo. 14:52:24 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031 LC-2031 14:52:32 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:52:33 I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing with the comments on HTTPS 14:52:43 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:53:11 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016 LC-2016 14:53:22 LC-2016 is again similar I think 14:53:39 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:53:53 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:54:01 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032 LC-2032 14:54:07 LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies 14:54:19 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:54:49 LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution 14:54:57 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:55:02 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001 LC-2001 14:55:12 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:55:19 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:55:34 Jo: 2004 the same 14:55:42 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:55:43 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033 LC-2033 14:55:46 Jo: and 2024 14:55:54 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern 14:56:07 LC-2051 something new from Eduardo 14:56:09 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004 LC-2004 14:56:14 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051 LC-2051 14:56:22 LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago. 14:57:01 Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think 14:57:28 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient overlap with this work 14:57:37 RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient overlap with this work 14:57:51 Jo: LC-2047 14:57:54 Done 14:58:16 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response 14:58:32 LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos� 14:58:37 -> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047 LC-2047 14:58:39 LC-2066 we resolved yes to 14:58:45