BP doc is ready for publication

Phil, François,

the BP document is now ready for you to take it on for publication ...

We editors have done the following:

   - fixed broken <section> elements
   - fixed broken table in Appendix C (requirements cross)
   - updated “sotd”
   - updated “changes”
   - removed references to closed issues: 125 & 208
   - fixed spelling & grammar mistakes - (using American-English!)
   - W3C ReSpec: ok - no warnings, no errors
   - W3C PubRules check [https://www.w3.org/pubrules/]: 2 errors reported
   (“Status of This Document” and “W3C Process boilerplate”); manual
   verification indicates that the necessary rules _are_ being followed …
   -
   -
   Error
   <https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules?profile=WD#sotd>

   <https://github.com/w3c/specberus/issues/new?title=Bug%20in%20rule%20%E2%80%9Cgeneric.sotd%E2%80%9D:%20[WHAT]&body=[EXPLANATION]%0A%0AFound%20[while%20checking%20`http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fbp%2F`](https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fpubrules%2F).&labels=from-template>
   No *“status of this document”* section found. Some errors related to
   this one will be omitted from the output, but most likely this will cause
   further problems along the line.
   There must be a status section that follows the abstract, labeled with an
    h2 element with content "Status of This Document". The Team maintains
   the status section of a document.
   - Error
   <https://www.w3.org/pubrules/doc/rules?profile=WD#whichProcess>

   <https://github.com/w3c/specberus/issues/new?title=Bug%20in%20rule%20%E2%80%9Cmetadata.process%E2%80%9D:%20[WHAT]&body=[EXPLANATION]%0A%0AFound%20[while%20checking%20`http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fbp%2F`](https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fpubrules%2F).&labels=from-template>
   Missing, or wrong, boilerplate text in the status section to identify
   the governing process.
   The document must include the following boilerplate text in the status
   section to identify the governing process:

   This document is governed by the 1 March 2017 W3C Process Document
   <https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/>.

   Include this source code:
   <p>This document is governed by the <a id="w3c_process_revision" href="
   https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/">1 March 2017 W3C Process
   Document</a>. </p>
   - W3C Link Check [https://validator.w3.org/checklink]: errors and
   warnings reported:
      - Line: 1346 *http://www.movescount.com/moves/move121790545*
      <http://www.movescount.com/moves/move121790545>* Status*: 404 *Not
      Found* … manual check: ok
      - Line: 3340
      *https://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf*
      <https://www.esri.com/library/whitepapers/pdfs/shapefile.pdf>* Status*:
      403 Forbidden … manual check: ok (and we’re removing this
reference in the
      next release)
      - Lines: 1528, 1565, 2590, 2591, 2592, 2593, 2594, 2595, 2596, 2712,
      2854 *http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql*
      <http://www.opengis.net/ont/geosparql>* Status*: 302 -> 200 OK
      (redirect) plus warnings about broken fragments; this is an OWL ontology
      downloaded as RDF/XML; the fragments exist as expected (e.g. `#sfWithin`)
      - Lines: 2650, 2854 *http://www.geonames.org/ontology*
      <http://www.geonames.org/ontology>* redirected to *
      *http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html*
      <http://www.geonames.org/ontology/documentation.html>* Status*: 303
      -> 200 OK (redirect) plus warnings about broken fragments; with correct
      content negotiation (e.g. `curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" -X GET "
      http://www.geonames.org/ontology#nearby"`), you get RDF/XML within
      which the fragments exist as expected (e.g. `#nearby`)
      - Line: 2305 *http://www.pdok.nl/* <http://www.pdok.nl/>* Status*:
      302 -> 500 *Internal Server Error* … manual check: ok
      - Lines: 1201, 1203 *http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/1089/oj*
      <http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/1089/oj>* Status*: 302 ->
500 *Internal
      Server Error* … manual check: ok
      - 21 links not checked due to robots exclusion rules … manual check:
      ok
      - a bunch of redirects are flagged with warnings; this is the Linked
      Data ID-to-DOC pattern behaving as expected

Over to one of you for creating the DIFF and doing all that's necessary to
make the Webmaster happy.

BR, Jeremy