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

Re: ACTION-956 Previous Last Call Comments on CT

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:19:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACA1C9C.7080101@w3.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
I did another pass to prepare tomorrow's speed reviewing session through 
the last call comments drafted responses. I added references to the 
appropriate section in the about-to-be-published second last call of the 
Guidelines where possible.

The list of last call comments is available at (member-only link):
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

A few notes:
- LC-2002 and LC-2048 on URI patterns. Replies need to be written. They 
should probably mention the second note in 4.1.5:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/Overview.html#sec-altering-header-values

- LC-2073 on the notion of same Web Site. Reply may need to be completed.

- LC-2000 on navigation bars. Reply may need to be completed.

- LC-2021 on WML DOCTYPEs. Why is it resolved_partial and not resolved_yes?


All other replies look good and in accordance with the latest version of 
the guidelines. I may have missed something though, 85 comments are to 
review.

Francois.


Francois Daoust wrote:
> Francois Daoust wrote:
>> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>> We need to find a way of checking the others. I suppose we could call an
>>> editorial meeting and bash through them in a couple of hours ...
>>>
>>> Other ideas gratefully received.
>>
>> +1 to all of this.
>> I will try to check the section references and report later today to 
>> speed things up.
> 
> I didn't exactly do that.
> 
> As we had already drafted most of the replies to the comments for which 
> we resolved "no", but had not started drafting replies to the comments 
> for which we resolved "yes" or "partial", I rather drafted these replies 
> to speed up the editorial bashing.
> 
> I tried to put the new section reference in the reply where appropriate, 
> but probably missed a few.
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 16:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:02 UTC