Re: LC comment on Content Transformation Guidelines 1.0 ( LC-1995)

Dear Julian Reschke,

The Last Call review period for the Guidelines for Web Content 
Transformation Proxies is over and we have not yet heard from you. We 
were wondering whether you had time to review the response to your 
comments below and the updated document, and whether you could let us 
know if you agree with it or not via email.

The header of the previous email was generated from a template that did 
not give us the opportunity to apologize for the time it took us to get 
back to you. Comments received during the first Last Call review period 
generated a lot of discussions within the group. Resolutions of the 
issues took more time than expected. The group thinks the document has 
quite improved as a consequence, apologizes for the delay and would like 
to thank you again for your contribution!

Thanks,

For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
Francois Daoust,
W3C Staff Contact.


fd@w3.org wrote:
>  Dear Julian Reschke ,
> 
> The Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group has reviewed the comments you
> sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Content Transformation
> Guidelines 1.0 published on 1 Aug 2008. Thank you for having taken the time
> to review the document and to send us comments!
> 
> The Working Group's response to your comment is included below, and has
> been implemented in the new version of the document available at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/.
> 
> Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
> public-bpwg-comments@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 6 November
> 2009. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
> solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
> consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
> formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
> transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
> Track.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> For the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group,
> Dominique Hazaël-Massieux
> François Daoust
> W3C Staff Contacts
> 
>  1. http://www.w3.org/mid/48941D2C.2020708@gmx.de
>  2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> Your comment on D.2 link HTTP Header:
>> "D.2 link HTTP Header
>>
>> The BPWG believes that the link HTTP header which was removed from 
>> recent drafts of HTTP, and which is under discussion for 
>> re-introduction, would represent a more general and flexible mechanism
>>
>> than use of the HTML link element, as discussed in this
>> recommendation."
>>
>> This is totally misleading.
>>
>> The link header was removed in RFC2616 (RFC, not a draft), and that was
>>
>> in 1999 (so, not "recent").
>>
>> BR, Julian
> 
> 
> Working Group Resolution (LC-1995):
> We agree and replaced the reference to "recent drafts of HTTP" by
> "HTTP/1.1"
> 
> The updated text is available at:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/Overview.html#d2e1677
> 
> ----
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 November 2009 12:48:42 UTC