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>

Luca

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  
call.

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  
basis.

Tom

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