- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:46:28 +0200
- 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