- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:19:40 +0200
- 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