disposition OK (with comments) Re: Gilman-3 and Gilman 17

At 9:58 AM +0000 29 01 2007, Rhys Lewis wrote:
>Hi Al,
>
>It was good to see you this week at the multigroup meeting.
>
>We are in the process of clearing the final comments on last call 
>for DISelect. We'll respond on each of the items for which there was 
>still work for us to complete separately. However, on checking 
>through the items raised against the first last call I wasn't able 
>to find your agreement/disagreement on
>
>Gilman-3 
>(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2006JulSep/0000.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2006JulSep/0000.html)

In this case, the 'response' is not in my opinion very responsive to 
the idea of the 'interactive option'
where the effect is that the user's preference is "tell me my 
choices" and the use can browse the
e.g. image options to interactively determine which works best for them.

On the other hand, I am not convinced that this is something that has 
to be directly suipported with
a language feature in DISelect.  This effect can be achieved by 
either a) writing out the menu as
one of the selectable chunks of delivered hypertext in the DIAL or 
other DISelect-host format; or
b) a separate control option outside the DISelect processing logic 
which disposes the DIAL document
verbatim to an alternate processor such as SWAP from UB-Access that 
takes a more radical
approach to reflow of the contents.

So at the bottom line, I see more value in getting DISelect into 
service than in holding it up for
an explicit language option to "menu-ize" the choices.

>Gilman-17 
>(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005OctDec/0003.html>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-diselect-editors/2005OctDec/0003.html)
>
>We agreed with both comments and have taken steps to correct our 
>errors. The second last call documents contained the corrections.

I am trusting you that the language has been made consistent; I 
haven't re-proof-read it for this.

But with that caveat, "Great!"  Sounds like the right thing has been done.


>
>Perhaps you would be able to confirm whether or not you accept the 
>disposition of comments for these two?

Done, here.

Thanks,

Al

>
>Thanks
>
>Best wishes
>Rhys