CT Guidelines 1t

Hello Everyone

It's my privilege and pleasure to serve up the latest course in what is 
now truly a banquet of revisions.

The chefs have been hard at work sourcing the ingredients for this new 
revision and blending them carefully into this delicious concoction 
which you will find tastefully arranged at the W3C Web site [1]. For 
your interest and consuming pleasure I include the list of ingredients 
below.

I for one am hoping to get on to the post banquet cognac and other 
revelries.

Jo

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/090921

==============

Main issues outstanding:

a) Conformance Statement

We agreed to use the MUST and SHOULD version [2] which should probably 
be refreshed just in case any references have changed and RESOLVE it as 
being final, find a permanent URI for it and link to the final version 
from the document.

[2] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/ics-090622-must

b) Tests and Definiton of "Same Domain"

Under 4.2.9.2 we need a definition of "same domain" and we need that in 
order to define the tests, too.

c) Response to LC-1 Commenters

To every thing, there is a season, and a time to every purpose under 
heaven. Per 3) below it's time we did this I think.

d) Do we need to issue the CT Landscape doc as a Note it is a WD at the 
moment?

=============

The ingredients:

1) ISSUE-294

All known methods to improve the situation of consent and common 
understanding of the risks involved, as well as mechanisms to minimize 
those risks, should be spelled out as examples for improving potential 
https content transformation if it is being used

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/294

There is no discussion attached to this topic. The current text 4.2.9.3 
refers to the dangers.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-294

2) ACTION-928

Registration of X-Device Headers

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/928

The reviewer's comments ref section 4.1.5.5 spelling out the headers is 
addressed in a previous editor's draft.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-928 and thank Francois for his 
persistence on this topic

3) ACTION-956

Review Last Call Comments

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/956

This is pending our proposal that this or a subsequent draft goes to 
Last Call. I think it is time start work on this as the substance of the 
document will not change between now and the next last call. At least 
not under my editorship, it won't.

Proposal: Review LC comments now, with a view to sending in 7 days time. 
If necessary divide among the group to review.

4) ACTION-969 and others

forward tests for Xss and cookie handling to group

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/969

Chaals did this and we have to figure out how to deal with this 
contribution. See ACTION-1001, ACTION-1003, ACTION-1007, ACTION-1008 and 
ACTION-1009

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-969 and thank Chaals most unctuously 
for this splendid contribution

5) ACTION-984

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/984

(following Francois's ACTION-983) to make sure that a note is put under 
4.2.9 to clarify what is and what is not a same document reference.

Sections 4.2.7 and 4.2.9 altered to define a term "same representation" 
and use it.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-984

6) ACTION-988

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/988

Proposed text for separate section based on EdC's ACTION-981 and taking 
into account his refinement of that at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Jun/0109.html

The relevant sections 4.1.5.3 and 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 adjusted per Eduardo's 
modified suggestions and a new Appendix summarising user preference 
sections has been added.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-988

7) ACTION-989

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/989

Enact resolution on included resources identified as mobile in 4.2.9 (above)

A bullet so added

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-989

8) ACTION-990

Reference the conformance mailing list in the ct doc

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/990

Done under 3.1.4

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-990

9) ACTION-992

Add the text proposed in resolution above on 4.1.5.5

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/actions/992

This opaquely worded truffle is

"Outside of the scope of normal HTTP operation ..." - I hope that what I 
have added to 4.1.5.5. is in the spirit of the comment - as I confess 
that I don't quite remember. I think it was one of Eduardo's comments.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close ACTION-992

10) ACTION-993

Propose text on same document refernce under 4.2.9 proposing a note to 
explain that this cannot be used for multiserving environemnts where 
more than one represenation shares the same URI

Text altered per 5) above. Hope that suits everyone.

11) ACTION-996

Add agreed text to 4.1.5 trying to avoid inserting too many negatives, 
not, not

Added text resolved on call. Slightly modified.

Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 15:50:47 UTC