ACTION-956 Previous Last Call Comments on CT

[Jo Rabin-2]

Here is the current status on the Last Call comments on CT

http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

There are 2 that remain open

There are 4 at proposal

There are 15 at pending

I did a quick scan of the resolved ones, we should really check that the
section references and everything else are still right since the
document has changed since we took those resolutions.

I think we should work through the open proposal and pending ones on the
next call.

We need to find a way of checking the others. I suppose we could call an
editorial meeting and bash through them in a couple of hours ...

Other ideas gratefully received.

Jo

[Francois Daoust]

Jo Rabin wrote:

>
> Here is the current status on the Last Call comments on CT
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ 
>
>
> There are 2 that remain open
>
> There are 4 at proposal
>
> There are 15 at pending
>
> I did a quick scan of the resolved ones, we should really check that the
> section references and everything else are still right since the
> document has changed since we took those resolutions.
>
> I think we should work through the open proposal and pending ones on the
> next call.
>
> We need to find a way of checking the others. I suppose we could call an
> editorial meeting and bash through them in a couple of hours ...
>
> Other ideas gratefully received.

+1 to all of this.
I will try to check the section references and report later today to
speed things up.

Francois.

[Francois Daoust]

Francois Daoust wrote:
> Jo Rabin wrote:
>> We need to find a way of checking the others. I suppose we could call an
>> editorial meeting and bash through them in a couple of hours ...
>>
>> Other ideas gratefully received.
>
> +1 to all of this.
> I will try to check the section references and report later today to
> speed things up.

I didn't exactly do that.

As we had already drafted most of the replies to the comments for which
we resolved "no", but had not started drafting replies to the comments
for which we resolved "yes" or "partial", I rather drafted these replies
to speed up the editorial bashing.

I tried to put the new section reference in the reply where appropriate,
but probably missed a few.

Francois.

[Francois Daoust]

I did another pass to prepare tomorrow's speed reviewing session through
the last call comments drafted responses. I added references to the
appropriate section in the about-to-be-published second last call of the
Guidelines where possible.

The list of last call comments is available at (member-only link):
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

A few notes:
- LC-2002 and LC-2048 on URI patterns. Replies need to be written. They
should probably mention the second note in 4.1.5:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ct-guidelines-20091006/Overview.html#sec-altering-header-values

- LC-2073 on the notion of same Web Site. Reply may need to be completed.

- LC-2000 on navigation bars. Reply may need to be completed.

- LC-2021 on WML DOCTYPEs. Why is it resolved_partial and not resolved_yes?


All other replies look good and in accordance with the latest version of
the guidelines. I may have missed something though, 85 comments are to
review.

Francois.


Francois Daoust wrote:

> Francois Daoust wrote:
>> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>> We need to find a way of checking the others. I suppose we could call an
>>> editorial meeting and bash through them in a couple of hours ...
>>>
>>> Other ideas gratefully received.
>>
>> +1 to all of this.
>> I will try to check the section references and report later today to
>> speed things up.
>
> I didn't exactly do that.
>
> As we had already drafted most of the replies to the comments for which
> we resolved "no", but had not started drafting replies to the comments
> for which we resolved "yes" or "partial", I rather drafted these replies
> to speed up the editorial bashing.
>
> I tried to put the new section reference in the reply where appropriate,
> but probably missed a few.
>
> Francois.
>
>