comments status

I have worked thorough the comments list adding the comments to the 
table at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/lc-spec

We appear to have four open comments, all from Booth.

We have other comments awaiting response (a few quite stale - maybe I 
will update those as 'no response').

In the initial agenda for this week I will give each open comment an 
agenda item.

Of these

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0052
is described as a minor editorial issue, which appears to have dropped 
off the editor's list. [It was not closed in Booth's message 0068].


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0069
issue-dbooth-9a: message pipeline,
which we had only inconclusive discussion last week.


http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0074
issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI

I believe we had consensus at the telecon that could have been expressed 
in words like:
[[
The GRDDL specification follows RFC 3986 section 5.1 and related 
specifications, concerning base URIs.

For the particular case in this comment, we believe that section 5.1.4, 
the use of an application default URI, provides an adequate solution. 
When there are no relative URIs to resolve, then the warning text from 
section 5.1.4 concerning application specific results, does not apply, 
and GRDDL is usable in an interoperable way.
]]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/2007AprJun/0078
issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity

My sense of the consensus both at the last telecon and on the list is 
that noone is prepared to propose reopening the relevant issue, and that 
the WG is minded to make no changes in response to this comment. [Except 
that HP has indicated intention to abstain]


====

In summary, I believe we can decide on our responses to three of these 
four issues tomorrow, and I believe those responses are:

2007AprJun/0052 - action danc to consider and respond

issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI
                - as above - no change to spec

issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity
                - as above - no change to spec


In responses of the form "we have considered your comment, and do not 
intend to make any changes", I think it is appropriate to suggest that 
the commentator can be 'satisfied that we have adequately considered the 
comment' or 'formally object'. Other options may lead to further 
discussion of little value.


Jeremy

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 4 June 2007 15:27:46 UTC