W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] Tuesday 13 January 2009

From: Tom Hume <Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:16:51 +0000
Message-Id: <C6CE6524-D2BA-4BCE-94FC-BB9456558292@futureplatforms.com>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>


The minutes for 13.01 contain a discussion of the "no-transform  
applying to referenced resources" suggestion. They state in the header  
that "on CT, We will not say anything about transforming included  
resources" - which seems clear to me - YMMV. No decision has been  
reversed, and the decision taken had full support of developers on the  

I see no discussion of this issue in previous minutes. If you've read  
the same minutes twice and drawn two different conclusions, I can't  
help you.

Skimming through the last 3 sets of minutes from CT calls, I don't see  
a resolution which was taken without the support of myself or Eduardo,  
and I don't see one passed that we disagreed with.

This would seem to suggest that either he and I are not raising  
important issues in the first place (which I think we'd say we are),  
or that your assertion that developers are being ignored is false. The  
one time where I see Eduardo or myself vote against a proposed  
resolution (in yesterdays call), the resolution is delayed whilst he  
can gather more information on the topic - supporting the idea that  
developers aren't being steamrollered.

No-one's being ignored, but you'll need to read minutes with more care  
if you wish to comment on the groups activities from an evidential  


On 14 Jan 2009, at 19:35, Luca Passani wrote:

> Tom, no need to go back to the minutes. You have already shown that  
> minutes don't mean anything. A few days ago I read the minutes and  
> there seemed to be consensus that a single "no-transform" per page  
> would be enough. Next stop this got rerversed. So, minutes only have  
> limited value. What I read are the decisions taken by the group and  
> the CTG itself. Right now the CTG gives enough wiggle room for  
> transcoder vendors to transcode where they shouldn't, while still  
> referring to W3C.
> Please name more decisions by the WG (apart from the WML one which  
> you have referred to multiple times) in which developer requests  
> have been accepted. You will find very few, if any. CTG still looks  
> exactly how Novarra wants it. Totally tailored around their product.

Future Platforms Ltd
e: Tom.Hume@futureplatforms.com
t: +44 (0) 1273 819038
m: +44 (0) 7971 781422
company: www.futureplatforms.com
personal: tomhume.org
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 21:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:58 UTC