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

Re: Minutes 2009-10-06

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:46:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACB6654.1060806@eunet.no>
To: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>

I notice that you have resolved no to all the points I had raised. 
Unfortunately, there is no way for me to track back my original 
comments, because links like this are password protected:

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


How can I access the comments? I may want to raise a formal objection to 
be reviewed by the Director....

Thank you

Luca

Phil Archer wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 15:49:55 UTC

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