ACTION-1021 Tweak CT Problem Statement and Propose to Group

[Jo Rabin-2]

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)

[Francois Daoust]

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as the charter it currently points to is obsolete.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)
>
>

[Jo Rabin-2]

Hi Francois

I'd be happy with that. If we can agree it on the call this afternoon
that would be great.

Jo

On 20/10/2009 08:55, Francois Daoust wrote:

> 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)
>>
>>

[Jo Rabin-2]

Hi

I updated the CT Landscape/Problem Statement doc "in place" [1] and diff
from last published version [2]. Per the resolution yesterday we are now
"good to go" for publication.

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)


On 20/10/2009 08:55, Francois Daoust wrote:

> 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)
>>
>>

[Francois Daoust]

Thanks Jo!

I have prepared the document for publication. Publication should be next
Tuesday.

FYI, I updated the links to the Mobile Web Best Practices and mobileOK
specs in the appendices to point to the final W3C Recommendations.

Francois.


Jo Rabin wrote:

> Hi
>
> I updated the CT Landscape/Problem Statement doc "in place" [1] and diff
> from last published version [2]. Per the resolution yesterday we are now
> "good to go" for publication.
>
> 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)
>
>
> On 20/10/2009 08:55, Francois Daoust wrote:
>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>