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

Minutes 2009-10-06

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:09:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4ACB5DC3.3020409@w3.org>
To: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Minutes from today's MWBP telecon are pasted below and are also 
available at http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html

You'll notice that the bulk of the call was taken up with going through 
all the LC comments on the CT Guidelines. DONE!!


    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DKA

    Regrets
           tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           Phil, PhilA

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
          2. [6]Clock changes
          3. [7]Update on BP 2.
          4. [8]Addendum
          5. [9]CT Guidelines
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2009

    <PhilA2> scribe: Phil

    <PhilA2> scribe: PhilA

    <PhilA2> Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has
    gone to Trinidad

    <francois> [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech]

    <PhilA2> .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some
    observers from T&T

    <brucel> hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps!

    <jo> from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of
    Trinidad and Tobago

    <jeffs> <wavings/>

    <jo> welcome to our observers

    <jeffs> tnx

Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London

    <PhilA2> Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP
    and one on CT leaving half a day for admin

    <PhilA2> .. if you have any other agenda items let me know

Clock changes

    <PhilA2> PhilA: Europe will be 31/10

    <PhilA2> .. (last Sat in October)

    <francois> [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179

      [11] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179

    <francois> 1 November 2009

    <PhilA2> Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time

Update on BP 2.

    <PhilA2> Jo: We're on target for transition this week?

    <PhilA2> Francois: Yes - should be later today

    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else on BP 2?

    <PhilA2> Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the
    'cleaning up stuff'

Addendum

    <PhilA2> FD: Philipp's comment is that the name addendum suggests
    that we're adding more normative content - what it needs is
    something more like what it is

    <francois> Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence

    <PhilA2> francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that
    we're extending it which we're really not.

    <PhilA2> Jo: SO what shall we do Francois?

    <PhilA2> Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo?

    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation?

    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance?

    <PhilA2> Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again?

    <PhilA2> Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BP in a normative
    way

    <PhilA2> Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it
    clear that it's not normative?

    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title

    <EdC> Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the
    beginning of the document?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
    document

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
    document because the document contains more than just evaluation of
    conformance to Best Practices

    <jo> [12]Current Draft

      [12] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923

    <PhilA2> PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best
    Practices

    <PhilA2> Jo: Shall we change the abstract to be more clear

    <jo> current abstract:

    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
    [MWBP] by providing additional evaluations of conformance to Best
    Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of
    Best Practice statements.

    <jo> proposed abstract:

    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
    [MWBP] by providing additional non-normative evaluations of
    conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional
    interpretations of Best Practice statements.

    <PhilA2> Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP

    <EdC> Is the word "clarification" what is missing?

    <jo> ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative
    extension - PH requests we find a new name for it

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-300 - Addendum to BP reads as though it is
    a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it ;
    please complete additional details at
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit .

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit

CT Guidelines

    <francois> [14]List of last call comments

      [14] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

    <PhilA2> Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions.
    Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds

    <PhilA2> Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication

    <PhilA2> Francois: No, it's going to ship today

    <PhilA2> Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back
    to the CT landscape and test suite

    <PhilA2> JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo

    <francois> [15]LC-2025

      [15] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025

    <PhilA2> EdC: I don't even remember writing that one...

    <PhilA2> Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there

    <PhilA2> Jo: This dates back over a year

    <PhilA2> .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to
    the points over the last year

    <PhilA2> EdC: Yes

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main
    thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters
    points more than it did at least

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust
    of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points
    more than it did at least

    <PhilA2> Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker

    <jo> [16]LC-2043

      [16] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043

    <francois> [17]LC-2043

      [17] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043

    <PhilA2> Jo: He's saying it needs to be guidelines and not a
    protocol. I think we've done that and followed a number of very
    useful comments he made.

    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. and to use existing text

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2097

    <francois> [18]LC-2097

      [18] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097

    <PhilA2> Jo: That's on OPEF - Open Pluggabel Edge Services. Comment
    from Internet Architecture Board. We should make reference to the ??
    discussion which we have done

    <PhilA2> .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great
    length

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <francois> [19]LC-2089

      [19] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089

    <PhilA2> Jo: Next up is LC-2089

    <PhilA2> Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT
    must take place

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
    comment

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
    comment

    <francois> [20]LC-2065

      [20] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column

    <PhilA2> .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already

    <PhilA2> Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added
    an appendix

    <PhilA2> .. no need for a formal resolution.

    <francois> [21]LC-2018

      [21] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018

    <PhilA2> .. move on to LC-2018

    <PhilA2> .. from Michael McQueen

    <PhilA2> Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the
    title of the document

    <francois> [22]LC-2050

      [22] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050

    <PhilA2> .. LC-2050

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo

    <PhilA2> We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some
    definitions around

    <EdC> ok with me.

    <francois> [23]LC-2067

      [23] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067

    <PhilA2> Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD
    statements

    <francois> [24]LC-2003

      [24] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003

    <PhilA2> LC-2003

    <PhilA2> .. from Luca P

    <PhilA2> We have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open
    for discussion

    <PhilA2> .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do
    what it does. Just the output

    <francois> [25]LC-2034

      [25] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034

    <PhilA2> LC-2034 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed
    is "we don't see any reason why"

    <PhilA2> So already resolved...

    <francois> [26]LC-2019

      [26] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019

    <PhilA2> LC-2019

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo again

    <PhilA2> We have already resolved partial on that

    <EdC> ok.

    <francois> [27]LC-2044

      [27] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044

    <PhilA2> LC-2044

    <PhilA2> Resolved partial on already

    <PhilA2> The comment was that there is no way of determining whether
    the request is coming from a Web browser or not. WE did change the
    text a little as he's right.

    <francois> [28]LC-2069

      [28] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069

    <PhilA2> LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes

    <francois> [29]LC-1996

      [29] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996

    <PhilA2> Removed the normative statement on web browser detection

    <PhilA2> LC-1996 from Luca

    <PhilA2> Have resolved no already

    <PhilA2> Although we comment that we have altered the relevant
    section a lot already

    <PhilA2> Francois: there are more similar comments

    <francois> [30]LC-2071

      [30] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071

    <PhilA2> This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved
    no on this

    <francois> [31]LC-2072

      [31] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072

    <PhilA2> LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes

    <francois> [32]LC-2073

      [32] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073

    <PhilA2> LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion

    <PhilA2> Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now?

    <PhilA2> francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs
    are the same website or not?

    <francois> [33]LC-2049

      [33] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049

    <PhilA2> LC-2049 from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Resolved no

    <francois> [34]LC-2017

      [34] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017

    <PhilA2> We have resolved no on this

    <francois> [35]LC-2036

      [35] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036

    <PhilA2> Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one

    <PhilA2> Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we
    say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback

    <francois> [36]LC-2053

      [36] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053

    <PhilA2> This one is open

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo

    <PhilA2> We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid.

    <PhilA2> EdC: Hang on...

    <brucel> Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome
    diversion from the excitement
    [37]http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/

      [37] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/

    <PhilA2> EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But...

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond
    that we hope the current version of the document addresses this

    <PhilA2> EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close
    it

    <PhilA2> EdC: happy with the resolution

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that
    we hope the current version of the document addresses this

    <PhilA2> LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate
    response for this one

    <francois> [38]LC-2005

      [38] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005

    <francois> [39]LC-2038

      [39] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038

    <PhilA2> LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial

    <PhilA2> Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines

    <francois> [40]LC-2054

      [40] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054

    <PhilA2> LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already

    <PhilA2> Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it

    <francois> [41]LC-2074

      [41] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2074 from MNot

    <PhilA2> we have resolved no to this

    <francois> [42]LC-2075

      [42] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075

    <PhilA2> .. again about re-issuing requests

    <PhilA2> EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely
    messes up some applications

    <PhilA2> Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people

    <PhilA2> .. we have already resolved no on 2074

    <francois> [43]LC-2037

      [43] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037

    <PhilA2> LC-2037 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now

    <francois> [44]LC-2076

      [44] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076

    <PhilA2> LC-2076 from MNOt

    <PhilA2> .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various
    items of text

    <francois> [45]LC-2039

      [45] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039

    <PhilA2> LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed

    <francois> [46]LC-1997

      [46] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997

    <PhilA2> LC-1997

    <PhilA2> from Luca - we have rsolved no

    <francois> [47]LC-2046

      [47] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046

    <PhilA2> LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes

    <francois> [48]LC-2014

      [48] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014

    <PhilA2> LC-2014 from Sean Owen have resolved partial

    <PhilA2> we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope

    <PhilA2> LC-2077 from MNot

    <francois> [49]LC-2077

      [49] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077

    <PhilA2> Resolved no

    <PhilA2> We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to
    sort it out

    <francois> [50]LC-2006

      [50] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006

    <PhilA2> We have resolved no for LC-2006

    <francois> [51]LC-2040

      [51] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040

    <PhilA2> LC-2040 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> we need to resolve this one

    <PhilA2> Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should
    be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ...

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
    response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
    response

    <francois> [52]LC-2078

      [52] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078

    <francois> [53]LC-2007

      [53] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007

    <PhilA2> LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the
    doc

    <PhilA2> LC-2007 which we have resolved yes

    <PhilA2> Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that
    referred to server behaviour

    <francois> [54]LC-2079

      [54] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079

    <PhilA2> LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to

    <francois> [55]LC-2080

      [55] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080

    <PhilA2> Moved into informative section

    <PhilA2> LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes

    <PhilA2> LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin
    servers

    <francois> [56]LC-2041

      [56] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041

    <francois> [57]LC-2010

      [57] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010

    <PhilA2> LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial

    <francois> [58]LC-2011

      [58] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011

    <PhilA2> LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes

    <francois> [59]LC-2009

      [59] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009

    <PhilA2> LC-2009 - resolved yes

    <francois> [60]LC-2020

      [60] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020

    <PhilA2> LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no

    <francois> [61]LC-2045

      [61] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045

    <PhilA2> LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial

    <PhilA2> LC-2091 from Luca

    <francois> [62]LC-2091

      [62] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091

    <PhilA2> REsolved no

    <PhilA2> Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we
    needed to add text although we agree with the point

    <francois> [63]LC-2082

      [63] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082

    <PhilA2> LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes

    <francois> [64]LC-2042

      [64] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042

    <PhilA2> LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point

    <francois> [65]LC-2083

      [65] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083

    <PhilA2> LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we
    resolved no

    <francois> [66]LC-2084

      [66] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084

    <PhilA2> LC-2084 resolved partial

    <francois> [67]LC-2090

      [67] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090

    <PhilA2> 2090 from Luca we resolved no

    <PhilA2> LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no

    <francois> [68]LC-1998

      [68] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998

    <francois> [69]LC-1999

      [69] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999

    <PhilA2> LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no

    <PhilA2> EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct

    <PhilA2> actually we do endorse the heuristics

    <PhilA2> Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from
    the reply

    <PhilA2> .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one

    <PhilA2> Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not
    part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content

    <PhilA2> LC-2048 from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't
    actually formulated a proposed response to this

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole
    remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining
    URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no

    <PhilA2> Jo: mumbles on a bit...

    <PhilA2> LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca

    <PhilA2> Jo: no text for this one

    <francois> [70]LC-2000

      [70] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000

    <francois> [71]LC-2022

      [71] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022

    <francois> [72]LC-2002

      [72] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
    than those listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
    than those listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes
    etc.

    <francois> [73]LC-2052

      [73] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052

    <francois> [74]LC-2021

      [74] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021

    <PhilA2> LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes

    <PhilA2> LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial

    <francois> [75]LC-2022

      [75] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022

    <francois> [76]LC-2023

      [76] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023

    <PhilA2> LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo

    <francois> [77]LC-2085

      [77] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085

    <PhilA2> LC-2085 from Tlr

    <PhilA2> Link re-writing

    <PhilA2> Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your
    comments and have added textt reflect your concerns

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments
    and have added textt reflect your concerns

    <PhilA2> LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Oh, maybe we do have a resolution

    <PhilA2> ...We're going to resolve yes

    <francois> [78]LC-2028

      [78] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending

    <PhilA2> Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment

    <francois> [79]LC-2029

      [79] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [80]LC-2030

      [80] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030

    <PhilA2> LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2015 from Sean Owen

    <francois> [81]LC-2015

      [81] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015

    <PhilA2> Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones

    <EdC> It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG!

    <jo> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this
    section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2031 from Eduardo.

    <francois> [82]LC-2031

      [82] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing
    with the comments on HTTPS

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [83]LC-2016

      [83] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016

    <PhilA2> LC-2016 is again similar I think

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [84]LC-2032

      [84] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032

    <PhilA2> LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [85]LC-2001

      [85] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001

    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> Jo: 2004 the same

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [86]LC-2033

      [86] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033

    <PhilA2> Jo: and 2024

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2051 something new from Eduardo

    <francois> [87]LC-2004

      [87] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004

    <francois> [88]LC-2051

      [88] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051

    <EdC> LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago.

    <PhilA2> Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was
    insufficient overlap with this work

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient
    overlap with this work

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2047

    <PhilA2> Done

    <PhilA2> 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that
    thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response

    <PhilA2> LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos�

    <francois> [89]LC-2047

      [89] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047

    <PhilA2> LC-2066 we resolved yes to

    <francois> [90]LC-2064

      [90] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2064

    <PhilA2> LC-2068 from MNot and we resolved yes and updated
    references as a reult

    <francois> [91]LC-2068

      [91] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2068

    <PhilA2> LC-2070 - same

    <francois> [92]LC-2070

      [92] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2070

    <PhilA2> LC-2081 - already resolved yes to this

    <francois> [93]LC-2008

      [93] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2008

    <PhilA2> LC-2081 already resolved yes. Same comment about moving to
    informativbe

    <francois> [94]LC-2081

      [94] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2081

    <francois> [95]LC-2013

      [95] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2013

    <PhilA2> LC-2013 from Jos� resolved yes

    <francois> [96]LC-2026

      [96] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2026

    <PhilA2> LC-2026 and 2027 need resolving

    <PhilA2> I suggest the same resolution as on other HTTPS ones.

    <PhilA2> s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was
    insufficient overlap with this work//

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [97]LC-2027

      [97] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2027

    <brucel> Can we have a convo about canvas and SVG for some light
    relief please?

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> Jo: and finally... 2095 from Julian Reschke

    <francois> [98]LC-1995

      [98] 
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1995

    <PhilA2> .. we agree. The link header was removed a long time ago

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC comment bashing is finished.

    <PhilA2> Francois might have missed one or two

    <DKA> hallelujah

    <PhilA2> .. I still see one that is opened. DId we do 2053?

    <DKA> Can we resolve to "lets roll" now?

    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else we need to do on comments, Francois?

    <PhilA2> Francois: We have missed 2051 which is still pending

    <PhilA2> .. it's on Eduardo.

    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resoved no when I look at it

    <PhilA2> Francois: OK, I'll send the LC comments as soon as possible
    when the spec is published

    <PhilA2> Jo: Thank you all

    <PhilA2> Jo: Light confection for next week

    <PhilA2> PhilA: revises his suggestion for supplement cf. addendum

    <brucel> hugs

    <PhilA2> Jo: Can't do it now. I'm thinking 'companion'

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [99]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([100]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:32 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [99] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [100] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [101]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/200
2/scribe/

     [101] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/BO/BP/
Succeeded: s/Sahll/Shall/
Succeeded: s/WE/We/
Succeeded: s/2097/1997/
Succeeded: s/own/Owen/
Succeeded: s/bater/Baker/
Succeeded: s/LC-2019/2090/
Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient
  overlap with this work//
FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient ov
erlap with this work//
Found Scribe: Phil
Found Scribe: PhilA

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 448 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: Phil, PhilA
Default Present: francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DK
A
Present: francois jo EdC Phil_Archer SeanP adam jeffs DKA
Regrets: tomhume manrique yeliz achuter sangwhan
Agenda: [102]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/00
00.html
Found Date: 06 Oct 2009
Guessing minutes URL: [103]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items:

     [102] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
     [103] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html

    End of [104]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [104] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm



-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Mobile Web Initiative
http://www.w3.org/Mobile

http://philarcher.org
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 15:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:54 UTC