- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:53:31 +0200
- To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- CC: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Luca, You should have received or are about to receive replies to your comments. The email contains instructions on how to proceed to agree, disagree or raise a formal objection to some particular point in the guidelines. Francois. Luca Passani wrote: > > I notice that you have resolved no to all the points I had raised. > Unfortunately, there is no way for me to track back my original > comments, because links like this are password protected: > > http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 > > > How can I access the comments? I may want to raise a formal objection to > be reviewed by the Director.... > > Thank you > > Luca > > Phil Archer wrote: >> Minutes from today's MWBP telecon are pasted below and are also >> available at http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html >> >> You'll notice that the bulk of the call was taken up with going >> through all the LC comments on the CT Guidelines. DONE!! >> >> >> [2]Agenda >> >> [2] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html >> >> See also: [3]IRC log >> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc >> >> Attendees >> >> Present >> francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DKA >> >> Regrets >> tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan >> >> Chair >> jo >> >> Scribe >> Phil, PhilA >> >> Contents >> >> * [4]Topics >> 1. [5]Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London >> 2. [6]Clock changes >> 3. [7]Update on BP 2. >> 4. [8]Addendum >> 5. [9]CT Guidelines >> * [10]Summary of Action Items >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2009 >> >> <PhilA2> scribe: Phil >> >> <PhilA2> scribe: PhilA >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has >> gone to Trinidad >> >> <francois> [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech] >> >> <PhilA2> .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some >> observers from T&T >> >> <brucel> hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps! >> >> <jo> from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of >> Trinidad and Tobago >> >> <jeffs> <wavings/> >> >> <jo> welcome to our observers >> >> <jeffs> tnx >> >> Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP >> and one on CT leaving half a day for admin >> >> <PhilA2> .. if you have any other agenda items let me know >> >> Clock changes >> >> <PhilA2> PhilA: Europe will be 31/10 >> >> <PhilA2> .. (last Sat in October) >> >> <francois> [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179 >> >> [11] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179 >> >> <francois> 1 November 2009 >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time >> >> Update on BP 2. >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: We're on target for transition this week? >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: Yes - should be later today >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else on BP 2? >> >> <PhilA2> Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the >> 'cleaning up stuff' >> >> Addendum >> >> <PhilA2> 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 >> >> <francois> Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence >> >> <PhilA2> francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that >> we're extending it which we're really not. >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: SO what shall we do Francois? >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo? >> >> <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation? >> >> <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance? >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again? >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BP in a normative >> way >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it >> clear that it's not normative? >> >> <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title >> >> <EdC> Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the >> beginning of the document? >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the >> document >> >> <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the >> document because the document contains more than just evaluation of >> conformance to Best Practices >> >> <jo> [12]Current Draft >> >> [12] >> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923 >> >> >> <PhilA2> PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best >> Practices >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Shall we change the abstract to be more clear >> >> <jo> current abstract: >> >> <jo> 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. >> >> <jo> proposed abstract: >> >> <jo> 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. >> >> <PhilA2> Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP >> >> <EdC> Is the word "clarification" what is missing? >> >> <jo> ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative >> extension - PH requests we find a new name for it >> >> <trackbot> 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 >> [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit . >> >> [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit >> >> CT Guidelines >> >> <francois> [14]List of last call comments >> >> [14] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions. >> Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: No, it's going to ship today >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back >> to the CT landscape and test suite >> >> <PhilA2> JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo >> >> <francois> [15]LC-2025 >> >> [15] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025 >> >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: I don't even remember writing that one... >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: This dates back over a year >> >> <PhilA2> .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to >> the points over the last year >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: Yes >> >> <jo> 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 >> >> <PhilA2> 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 >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker >> >> <jo> [16]LC-2043 >> >> [16] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 >> >> >> <francois> [17]LC-2043 >> >> [17] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 >> >> >> <PhilA2> 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. >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: It's resolved yes >> >> <PhilA2> .. and to use existing text >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing >> proposed response >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing >> proposed response >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2097 >> >> <francois> [18]LC-2097 >> >> [18] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097 >> >> >> <PhilA2> 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 >> >> <PhilA2> .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great >> length >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing >> proposed response >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing >> proposed response >> >> <francois> [19]LC-2089 >> >> [19] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Next up is LC-2089 >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT >> must take place >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing >> comment >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing >> comment >> >> <francois> [20]LC-2065 >> >> [20] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column >> >> <PhilA2> .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added >> an appendix >> >> <PhilA2> .. no need for a formal resolution. >> >> <francois> [21]LC-2018 >> >> [21] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018 >> >> >> <PhilA2> .. move on to LC-2018 >> >> <PhilA2> .. from Michael McQueen >> >> <PhilA2> Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the >> title of the document >> >> <francois> [22]LC-2050 >> >> [22] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050 >> >> >> <PhilA2> .. LC-2050 >> >> <PhilA2> From Eduardo >> >> <PhilA2> We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some >> definitions around >> >> <EdC> ok with me. >> >> <francois> [23]LC-2067 >> >> [23] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes >> >> <PhilA2> .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD >> statements >> >> <francois> [24]LC-2003 >> >> [24] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2003 >> >> <PhilA2> .. from Luca P >> >> <PhilA2> We have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open >> for discussion >> >> <PhilA2> .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do >> what it does. Just the output >> >> <francois> [25]LC-2034 >> >> [25] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2034 from Mark Baker >> >> <PhilA2> .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed >> is "we don't see any reason why" >> >> <PhilA2> So already resolved... >> >> <francois> [26]LC-2019 >> >> [26] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2019 >> >> <PhilA2> From Eduardo again >> >> <PhilA2> We have already resolved partial on that >> >> <EdC> ok. >> >> <francois> [27]LC-2044 >> >> [27] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2044 >> >> <PhilA2> Resolved partial on already >> >> <PhilA2> 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. >> >> <francois> [28]LC-2069 >> >> [28] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes >> >> <francois> [29]LC-1996 >> >> [29] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Removed the normative statement on web browser detection >> >> <PhilA2> LC-1996 from Luca >> >> <PhilA2> Have resolved no already >> >> <PhilA2> Although we comment that we have altered the relevant >> section a lot already >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: there are more similar comments >> >> <francois> [30]LC-2071 >> >> [30] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071 >> >> >> <PhilA2> This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved >> no on this >> >> <francois> [31]LC-2072 >> >> [31] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes >> >> <francois> [32]LC-2073 >> >> [32] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion >> >> <PhilA2> Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now? >> >> <PhilA2> francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs >> are the same website or not? >> >> <francois> [33]LC-2049 >> >> [33] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2049 from Eduardo >> >> <PhilA2> Resolved no >> >> <francois> [34]LC-2017 >> >> [34] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017 >> >> >> <PhilA2> We have resolved no on this >> >> <francois> [35]LC-2036 >> >> [35] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one >> >> <PhilA2> Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we >> say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback >> >> <francois> [36]LC-2053 >> >> [36] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 >> >> >> <PhilA2> This one is open >> >> <PhilA2> From Eduardo >> >> <PhilA2> We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid. >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: Hang on... >> >> <brucel> Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome >> diversion from the excitement >> [37]http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/ >> >> [37] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/ >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But... >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond >> that we hope the current version of the document addresses this >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close >> it >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: happy with the resolution >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that >> we hope the current version of the document addresses this >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate >> response for this one >> >> <francois> [38]LC-2005 >> >> [38] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005 >> >> >> <francois> [39]LC-2038 >> >> [39] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines >> >> <francois> [40]LC-2054 >> >> [40] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it >> >> <francois> [41]LC-2074 >> >> [41] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2074 from MNot >> >> <PhilA2> we have resolved no to this >> >> <francois> [42]LC-2075 >> >> [42] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075 >> >> >> <PhilA2> .. again about re-issuing requests >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely >> messes up some applications >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people >> >> <PhilA2> .. we have already resolved no on 2074 >> >> <francois> [43]LC-2037 >> >> [43] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2037 from Mark Baker >> >> <PhilA2> We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now >> >> <francois> [44]LC-2076 >> >> [44] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2076 from MNOt >> >> <PhilA2> .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various >> items of text >> >> <francois> [45]LC-2039 >> >> [45] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes >> >> <PhilA2> .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed >> >> <francois> [46]LC-1997 >> >> [46] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-1997 >> >> <PhilA2> from Luca - we have rsolved no >> >> <francois> [47]LC-2046 >> >> [47] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes >> >> <francois> [48]LC-2014 >> >> [48] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2014 from Sean Owen have resolved partial >> >> <PhilA2> we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2077 from MNot >> >> <francois> [49]LC-2077 >> >> [49] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Resolved no >> >> <PhilA2> We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to >> sort it out >> >> <francois> [50]LC-2006 >> >> [50] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006 >> >> >> <PhilA2> We have resolved no for LC-2006 >> >> <francois> [51]LC-2040 >> >> [51] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2040 from Mark Baker >> >> <PhilA2> we need to resolve this one >> >> <PhilA2> Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should >> be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ... >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed >> response >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed >> response >> >> <francois> [52]LC-2078 >> >> [52] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078 >> >> >> <francois> [53]LC-2007 >> >> [53] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the >> doc >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2007 which we have resolved yes >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that >> referred to server behaviour >> >> <francois> [54]LC-2079 >> >> [54] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to >> >> <francois> [55]LC-2080 >> >> [55] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Moved into informative section >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin >> servers >> >> <francois> [56]LC-2041 >> >> [56] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041 >> >> >> <francois> [57]LC-2010 >> >> [57] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial >> >> <francois> [58]LC-2011 >> >> [58] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes >> >> <francois> [59]LC-2009 >> >> [59] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2009 - resolved yes >> >> <francois> [60]LC-2020 >> >> [60] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no >> >> <francois> [61]LC-2045 >> >> [61] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2091 from Luca >> >> <francois> [62]LC-2091 >> >> [62] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 >> >> >> <PhilA2> REsolved no >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we >> needed to add text although we agree with the point >> >> <francois> [63]LC-2082 >> >> [63] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes >> >> <francois> [64]LC-2042 >> >> [64] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point >> >> <francois> [65]LC-2083 >> >> [65] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we >> resolved no >> >> <francois> [66]LC-2084 >> >> [66] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2084 resolved partial >> >> <francois> [67]LC-2090 >> >> [67] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 >> >> >> <PhilA2> 2090 from Luca we resolved no >> >> <PhilA2> LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no >> >> <francois> [68]LC-1998 >> >> [68] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998 >> >> >> <francois> [69]LC-1999 >> >> [69] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no >> >> <PhilA2> EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct >> >> <PhilA2> actually we do endorse the heuristics >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from >> the reply >> >> <PhilA2> .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not >> part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2048 from Eduardo >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't >> actually formulated a proposed response to this >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole >> remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining >> URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: mumbles on a bit... >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: no text for this one >> >> <francois> [70]LC-2000 >> >> [70] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000 >> >> >> <francois> [71]LC-2022 >> >> [71] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 >> >> >> <francois> [72]LC-2002 >> >> [72] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002 >> >> >> <jo> 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 >> >> <PhilA2> 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 >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes >> etc. >> >> <francois> [73]LC-2052 >> >> [73] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052 >> >> >> <francois> [74]LC-2021 >> >> [74] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial >> >> <francois> [75]LC-2022 >> >> [75] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 >> >> >> <francois> [76]LC-2023 >> >> [76] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo >> >> <francois> [77]LC-2085 >> >> [77] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2085 from Tlr >> >> <PhilA2> Link re-writing >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here? >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your >> comments and have added textt reflect your concerns >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments >> and have added textt reflect your concerns >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo >> >> <PhilA2> Oh, maybe we do have a resolution >> >> <PhilA2> ...We're going to resolve yes >> >> <francois> [78]LC-2028 >> >> [78] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028 >> >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment >> >> <francois> [79]LC-2029 >> >> [79] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029 >> >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [80]LC-2030 >> >> [80] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2015 from Sean Owen >> >> <francois> [81]LC-2015 >> >> [81] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones >> >> <EdC> It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG! >> >> <jo> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this >> section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2031 from Eduardo. >> >> <francois> [82]LC-2031 >> >> [82] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031 >> >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing >> with the comments on HTTPS >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [83]LC-2016 >> >> [83] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2016 is again similar I think >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [84]LC-2032 >> >> [84] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [85]LC-2001 >> >> [85] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001 >> >> >> <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: 2004 the same >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [86]LC-2033 >> >> [86] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033 >> >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: and 2024 >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2051 something new from Eduardo >> >> <francois> [87]LC-2004 >> >> [87] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004 >> >> >> <francois> [88]LC-2051 >> >> [88] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051 >> >> >> <EdC> LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago. >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was >> insufficient overlap with this work >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient >> overlap with this work >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2047 >> >> <PhilA2> Done >> >> <PhilA2> 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that >> thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos� >> >> <francois> [89]LC-2047 >> >> [89] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2066 we resolved yes to >> >> <francois> [90]LC-2064 >> >> [90] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2064 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2068 from MNot and we resolved yes and updated >> references as a reult >> >> <francois> [91]LC-2068 >> >> [91] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2068 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2070 - same >> >> <francois> [92]LC-2070 >> >> [92] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2070 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2081 - already resolved yes to this >> >> <francois> [93]LC-2008 >> >> [93] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2008 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2081 already resolved yes. Same comment about moving to >> informativbe >> >> <francois> [94]LC-2081 >> >> [94] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2081 >> >> >> <francois> [95]LC-2013 >> >> [95] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2013 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2013 from Jos� resolved yes >> >> <francois> [96]LC-2026 >> >> [96] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2026 >> >> >> <PhilA2> LC-2026 and 2027 need resolving >> >> <PhilA2> I suggest the same resolution as on other HTTPS ones. >> >> <PhilA2> s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was >> insufficient overlap with this work// >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <francois> [97]LC-2027 >> >> [97] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2027 >> >> >> <brucel> Can we have a convo about canvas and SVG for some light >> relief please? >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added >> text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added text to >> this section that goes some way to addressing your concern >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: and finally... 2095 from Julian Reschke >> >> <francois> [98]LC-1995 >> >> [98] >> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1995 >> >> >> <PhilA2> .. we agree. The link header was removed a long time ago >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: LC comment bashing is finished. >> >> <PhilA2> Francois might have missed one or two >> >> <DKA> hallelujah >> >> <PhilA2> .. I still see one that is opened. DId we do 2053? >> >> <DKA> Can we resolve to "lets roll" now? >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else we need to do on comments, Francois? >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: We have missed 2051 which is still pending >> >> <PhilA2> .. it's on Eduardo. >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: It's resoved no when I look at it >> >> <PhilA2> Francois: OK, I'll send the LC comments as soon as possible >> when the spec is published >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Thank you all >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Light confection for next week >> >> <PhilA2> PhilA: revises his suggestion for supplement cf. addendum >> >> <brucel> hugs >> >> <PhilA2> Jo: Can't do it now. I'm thinking 'companion' >> >> Summary of Action Items >> >> [End of minutes] >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> >> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [99]scribe.perl version 1.135 >> ([100]CVS log) >> $Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:32 $ >> _________________________________________________________ >> >> [99] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> [100] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/ >> >> Scribe.perl diagnostic output >> >> [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.] >> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 >> Check for newer version at [101]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/200 >> 2/scribe/ >> >> [101] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ >> >> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) >> >> Succeeded: s/BO/BP/ >> Succeeded: s/Sahll/Shall/ >> Succeeded: s/WE/We/ >> Succeeded: s/2097/1997/ >> Succeeded: s/own/Owen/ >> Succeeded: s/bater/Baker/ >> Succeeded: s/LC-2019/2090/ >> Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient >> overlap with this work// >> FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient ov >> erlap with this work// >> Found Scribe: Phil >> Found Scribe: PhilA >> >> WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 448 total lines.) >> Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick? >> >> Scribes: Phil, PhilA >> Default Present: francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DK >> A >> Present: francois jo EdC Phil_Archer SeanP adam jeffs DKA >> Regrets: tomhume manrique yeliz achuter sangwhan >> Agenda: [102]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/00 >> 00.html >> Found Date: 06 Oct 2009 >> Guessing minutes URL: [103]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.ht >> ml >> People with action items: >> >> [102] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html >> [103] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html >> >> End of [104]scribe.perl diagnostic output] >> >> [104] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm >> >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 16:06:52 UTC