- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:55:44 +0200
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- CC: Public BPWG <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Hi Jo, Given that the CT Landscape is to remain as is for a long time, I would not anchor it in time with a mention of the Last Call Working Draft of the guidelines. The guidelines should not stay as last call forever. I would also clarify that by "historical" we mean the guidelines were inspired by this document but may precisely follow this set of requirements. Or is "historical" clear enough for everyone? I suggest the two following changes. In the abstract, I suggest to replace: [[ In this revision the document is largely historical - the Transformation Guidelines document having been published as a Last Call Working Draft . ]] by: [[ In this revision the document is largely historical: the Content Transformation Guidelines document, published under the title "Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies" [LINK to http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/] and initially inspired by the set of requirements identified in this document, has evolved based on available technologies and feedback and may not precisely follow these requirements anymore. ]] or by something similar in real English ;) In the Status of This document section, I would also replace: [[ non-normative W3C Recommendation on content adaptation ]] by: [[ Guidelines for Web Content Transformation Proxies ]] and update the link to point to http://www.w3.org/TR/ct-guidelines/ as the charter it currently points to is obsolete. I'll update the Status of This Document section when I prepare the document for publication anyway to note that the we do not expect to work on this document any further (and as required to please the publication rules checker), so I can handle that second update unless someone disagrees. Francois. Jo Rabin wrote: > As discussed on last week's call I have made some minor edits to the CT > Problem Statement. I've taken the liberty of preparing it for > publication on Thursday next week in the hope that we will agree that on > our call on Tuesday. > > The document is at [1] and diff from the published version is at [2]. > > Jo > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/ProblemStatement/CTProblemStatement.html > > > (http://tinyurl.com/yjqphe2) > > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ct-landscape-20071025/&doc2=http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/ProblemStatement/CTProblemStatement.html > > > (http://tinyurl.com/yzww24f) > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 07:56:14 UTC