- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:09:55 +0100
- 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