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: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:17:54 +0000
Message-Id: <CB4BBDD6-CD0C-45D9-A5E8-AEF48AA5C61B@futureplatforms.com>
To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

OK, I feel this is turning into another episode of the Tom and Luca  

>  I talked about consensus on the idea of a single no-transform which  
> *seemed* to be there at one point, while that consensus was gone (I  
> did use the term "reversed", but the subject was not "decision") the  
> following time.
> from the minutes of January 6:
>  " <jo> [one more PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Content that is an included
>    resource of a document treated transparently should be treated
>    transparently] "
>  >From yesterday's minutes:
>  <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will not say anything about
>    transforming included resources [that was not your best ever idea
>    Jo] "
>  So, how can you tell me that looking at CTWG/BPWG minutes may  
> demonstrate anything at all?

I think the key word you're missing from your interpretation was  
"proposed". Yes, the first one was proposed. Then it was discussed (as  
you can see from minutes), we found a number of problems with the  
proposal, and came up with an alternative.

The group hasn't changed its mind. It discussed one possibility,  
rejected it, and discussed and agreed on another.


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 Thursday, 15 January 2009 09:18:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:53 UTC