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

Re: Minutes 2009-10-06

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:53:31 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACB67FB.1090005@w3.org>
To: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
CC: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Luca,

You should have received or are about to receive replies to your 
comments. The email contains instructions on how to proceed to agree, 
disagree or raise a formal objection to some particular point in the 
guidelines.

Francois.

Luca Passani wrote:
> 
> 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 16:06:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:02 UTC