Minutes 2009-10-06

[Phil Archer-4]

Minutes from today's MWBP telecon are pasted below and are also
available at http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html

You'll notice that the bulk of the call was taken up with going through
all the LC comments on the CT Guidelines. DONE!!


    [2]Agenda

       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DKA

    Regrets
           tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan

    Chair
           jo

    Scribe
           Phil, PhilA

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
          2. [6]Clock changes
          3. [7]Update on BP 2.
          4. [8]Addendum
          5. [9]CT Guidelines
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________



    <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2009

    <PhilA2> scribe: Phil

    <PhilA2> scribe: PhilA

    <PhilA2> Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has
    gone to Trinidad

    <francois> [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech]

    <PhilA2> .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some
    observers from T&T

    <brucel> hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps!

    <jo> from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of
    Trinidad and Tobago

    <jeffs> <wavings/>

    <jo> welcome to our observers

    <jeffs> tnx

Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London

    <PhilA2> Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP
    and one on CT leaving half a day for admin

    <PhilA2> .. if you have any other agenda items let me know

Clock changes

    <PhilA2> PhilA: Europe will be 31/10

    <PhilA2> .. (last Sat in October)

    <francois> [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179

      [11] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179

    <francois> 1 November 2009

    <PhilA2> Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time

Update on BP 2.

    <PhilA2> Jo: We're on target for transition this week?

    <PhilA2> Francois: Yes - should be later today

    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else on BP 2?

    <PhilA2> Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the
    'cleaning up stuff'

Addendum

    <PhilA2> FD: Philipp's comment is that the name addendum suggests
    that we're adding more normative content - what it needs is
    something more like what it is

    <francois> Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence

    <PhilA2> francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that
    we're extending it which we're really not.

    <PhilA2> Jo: SO what shall we do Francois?

    <PhilA2> Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo?

    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation?

    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance?

    <PhilA2> Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again?

    <PhilA2> Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BP in a normative
    way

    <PhilA2> Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it
    clear that it's not normative?

    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title

    <EdC> Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the
    beginning of the document?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
    document

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
    document because the document contains more than just evaluation of
    conformance to Best Practices

    <jo> [12]Current Draft

      [12]
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923

    <PhilA2> PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best
    Practices

    <PhilA2> Jo: Shall we change the abstract to be more clear

    <jo> current abstract:

    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
    [MWBP] by providing additional evaluations of conformance to Best
    Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of
    Best Practice statements.

    <jo> proposed abstract:

    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
    [MWBP] by providing additional non-normative evaluations of
    conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional
    interpretations of Best Practice statements.

    <PhilA2> Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP

    <EdC> Is the word "clarification" what is missing?

    <jo> ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative
    extension - PH requests we find a new name for it

    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-300 - Addendum to BP reads as though it is
    a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it ;
    please complete additional details at
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit .

      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit

CT Guidelines

    <francois> [14]List of last call comments

      [14]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/

    <PhilA2> Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions.
    Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds

    <PhilA2> Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication

    <PhilA2> Francois: No, it's going to ship today

    <PhilA2> Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back
    to the CT landscape and test suite

    <PhilA2> JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo

    <francois> [15]LC-2025

      [15]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025

    <PhilA2> EdC: I don't even remember writing that one...

    <PhilA2> Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there

    <PhilA2> Jo: This dates back over a year

    <PhilA2> .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to
    the points over the last year

    <PhilA2> EdC: Yes

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main
    thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters
    points more than it did at least

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust
    of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points
    more than it did at least

    <PhilA2> Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker

    <jo> [16]LC-2043

      [16]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043

    <francois> [17]LC-2043

      [17]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043

    <PhilA2> Jo: He's saying it needs to be guidelines and not a
    protocol. I think we've done that and followed a number of very
    useful comments he made.

    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. and to use existing text

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2097

    <francois> [18]LC-2097

      [18]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097

    <PhilA2> Jo: That's on OPEF - Open Pluggabel Edge Services. Comment
    from Internet Architecture Board. We should make reference to the ??
    discussion which we have done

    <PhilA2> .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great
    length

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
    proposed response

    <francois> [19]LC-2089

      [19]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089

    <PhilA2> Jo: Next up is LC-2089

    <PhilA2> Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT
    must take place

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
    comment

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
    comment

    <francois> [20]LC-2065

      [20]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column

    <PhilA2> .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already

    <PhilA2> Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added
    an appendix

    <PhilA2> .. no need for a formal resolution.

    <francois> [21]LC-2018

      [21]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018

    <PhilA2> .. move on to LC-2018

    <PhilA2> .. from Michael McQueen

    <PhilA2> Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the
    title of the document

    <francois> [22]LC-2050

      [22]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050

    <PhilA2> .. LC-2050

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo

    <PhilA2> We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some
    definitions around

    <EdC> ok with me.

    <francois> [23]LC-2067

      [23]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067

    <PhilA2> Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD
    statements

    <francois> [24]LC-2003

      [24]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003

    <PhilA2> LC-2003

    <PhilA2> .. from Luca P

    <PhilA2> We have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open
    for discussion

    <PhilA2> .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do
    what it does. Just the output

    <francois> [25]LC-2034

      [25]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034

    <PhilA2> LC-2034 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed
    is "we don't see any reason why"

    <PhilA2> So already resolved...

    <francois> [26]LC-2019

      [26]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019

    <PhilA2> LC-2019

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo again

    <PhilA2> We have already resolved partial on that

    <EdC> ok.

    <francois> [27]LC-2044

      [27]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044

    <PhilA2> LC-2044

    <PhilA2> Resolved partial on already

    <PhilA2> The comment was that there is no way of determining whether
    the request is coming from a Web browser or not. WE did change the
    text a little as he's right.

    <francois> [28]LC-2069

      [28]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069

    <PhilA2> LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes

    <francois> [29]LC-1996

      [29]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996

    <PhilA2> Removed the normative statement on web browser detection

    <PhilA2> LC-1996 from Luca

    <PhilA2> Have resolved no already

    <PhilA2> Although we comment that we have altered the relevant
    section a lot already

    <PhilA2> Francois: there are more similar comments

    <francois> [30]LC-2071

      [30]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071

    <PhilA2> This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved
    no on this

    <francois> [31]LC-2072

      [31]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072

    <PhilA2> LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes

    <francois> [32]LC-2073

      [32]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073

    <PhilA2> LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion

    <PhilA2> Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now?

    <PhilA2> francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs
    are the same website or not?

    <francois> [33]LC-2049

      [33]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049

    <PhilA2> LC-2049 from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Resolved no

    <francois> [34]LC-2017

      [34]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017

    <PhilA2> We have resolved no on this

    <francois> [35]LC-2036

      [35]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036

    <PhilA2> Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one

    <PhilA2> Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we
    say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback

    <francois> [36]LC-2053

      [36]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053

    <PhilA2> This one is open

    <PhilA2> From Eduardo

    <PhilA2> We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid.

    <PhilA2> EdC: Hang on...

    <brucel> Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome
    diversion from the excitement
    [37]http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/

      [37] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/

    <PhilA2> EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But...

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond
    that we hope the current version of the document addresses this

    <PhilA2> EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close
    it

    <PhilA2> EdC: happy with the resolution

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that
    we hope the current version of the document addresses this

    <PhilA2> LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate
    response for this one

    <francois> [38]LC-2005

      [38]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005

    <francois> [39]LC-2038

      [39]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038

    <PhilA2> LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial

    <PhilA2> Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines

    <francois> [40]LC-2054

      [40]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054

    <PhilA2> LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already

    <PhilA2> Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it

    <francois> [41]LC-2074

      [41]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2074 from MNot

    <PhilA2> we have resolved no to this

    <francois> [42]LC-2075

      [42]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075

    <PhilA2> .. again about re-issuing requests

    <PhilA2> EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely
    messes up some applications

    <PhilA2> Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people

    <PhilA2> .. we have already resolved no on 2074

    <francois> [43]LC-2037

      [43]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037

    <PhilA2> LC-2037 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now

    <francois> [44]LC-2076

      [44]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076

    <PhilA2> LC-2076 from MNOt

    <PhilA2> .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various
    items of text

    <francois> [45]LC-2039

      [45]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039

    <PhilA2> LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes

    <PhilA2> .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed

    <francois> [46]LC-1997

      [46]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997

    <PhilA2> LC-1997

    <PhilA2> from Luca - we have rsolved no

    <francois> [47]LC-2046

      [47]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046

    <PhilA2> LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes

    <francois> [48]LC-2014

      [48]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014

    <PhilA2> LC-2014 from Sean Owen have resolved partial

    <PhilA2> we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope

    <PhilA2> LC-2077 from MNot

    <francois> [49]LC-2077

      [49]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077

    <PhilA2> Resolved no

    <PhilA2> We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to
    sort it out

    <francois> [50]LC-2006

      [50]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006

    <PhilA2> We have resolved no for LC-2006

    <francois> [51]LC-2040

      [51]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040

    <PhilA2> LC-2040 from Mark Baker

    <PhilA2> we need to resolve this one

    <PhilA2> Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should
    be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ...

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
    response

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
    response

    <francois> [52]LC-2078

      [52]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078

    <francois> [53]LC-2007

      [53]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007

    <PhilA2> LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the
    doc

    <PhilA2> LC-2007 which we have resolved yes

    <PhilA2> Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that
    referred to server behaviour

    <francois> [54]LC-2079

      [54]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079

    <PhilA2> LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to

    <francois> [55]LC-2080

      [55]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080

    <PhilA2> Moved into informative section

    <PhilA2> LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes

    <PhilA2> LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin
    servers

    <francois> [56]LC-2041

      [56]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041

    <francois> [57]LC-2010

      [57]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010

    <PhilA2> LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial

    <francois> [58]LC-2011

      [58]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011

    <PhilA2> LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes

    <francois> [59]LC-2009

      [59]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009

    <PhilA2> LC-2009 - resolved yes

    <francois> [60]LC-2020

      [60]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020

    <PhilA2> LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no

    <francois> [61]LC-2045

      [61]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045

    <PhilA2> LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial

    <PhilA2> LC-2091 from Luca

    <francois> [62]LC-2091

      [62]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091

    <PhilA2> REsolved no

    <PhilA2> Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we
    needed to add text although we agree with the point

    <francois> [63]LC-2082

      [63]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082

    <PhilA2> LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes

    <francois> [64]LC-2042

      [64]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042

    <PhilA2> LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point

    <francois> [65]LC-2083

      [65]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083

    <PhilA2> LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we
    resolved no

    <francois> [66]LC-2084

      [66]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084

    <PhilA2> LC-2084 resolved partial

    <francois> [67]LC-2090

      [67]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090

    <PhilA2> 2090 from Luca we resolved no

    <PhilA2> LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no

    <francois> [68]LC-1998

      [68]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998

    <francois> [69]LC-1999

      [69]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999

    <PhilA2> LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no

    <PhilA2> EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct

    <PhilA2> actually we do endorse the heuristics

    <PhilA2> Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from
    the reply

    <PhilA2> .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one

    <PhilA2> Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not
    part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content

    <PhilA2> LC-2048 from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't
    actually formulated a proposed response to this

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole
    remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining
    URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no

    <PhilA2> Jo: mumbles on a bit...

    <PhilA2> LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca

    <PhilA2> Jo: no text for this one

    <francois> [70]LC-2000

      [70]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000

    <francois> [71]LC-2022

      [71]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022

    <francois> [72]LC-2002

      [72]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
    than those listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
    than those listed in Appendix E

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes
    etc.

    <francois> [73]LC-2052

      [73]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052

    <francois> [74]LC-2021

      [74]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021

    <PhilA2> LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes

    <PhilA2> LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial

    <francois> [75]LC-2022

      [75]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022

    <francois> [76]LC-2023

      [76]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023

    <PhilA2> LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo

    <francois> [77]LC-2085

      [77]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085

    <PhilA2> LC-2085 from Tlr

    <PhilA2> Link re-writing

    <PhilA2> Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here?

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your
    comments and have added textt reflect your concerns

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments
    and have added textt reflect your concerns

    <PhilA2> LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo

    <PhilA2> Oh, maybe we do have a resolution

    <PhilA2> ...We're going to resolve yes

    <francois> [78]LC-2028

      [78]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending

    <PhilA2> Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment

    <francois> [79]LC-2029

      [79]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [80]LC-2030

      [80]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030

    <PhilA2> LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2015 from Sean Owen

    <francois> [81]LC-2015

      [81]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015

    <PhilA2> Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones

    <EdC> It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG!

    <jo> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this
    section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2031 from Eduardo.

    <francois> [82]LC-2031

      [82]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing
    with the comments on HTTPS

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [83]LC-2016

      [83]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016

    <PhilA2> LC-2016 is again similar I think

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [84]LC-2032

      [84]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032

    <PhilA2> LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [85]LC-2001

      [85]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001

    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> Jo: 2004 the same

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [86]LC-2033

      [86]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033

    <PhilA2> Jo: and 2024

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> LC-2051 something new from Eduardo

    <francois> [87]LC-2004

      [87]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004

    <francois> [88]LC-2051

      [88]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051

    <EdC> LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago.

    <PhilA2> Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was
    insufficient overlap with this work

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient
    overlap with this work

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2047

    <PhilA2> Done

    <PhilA2> 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that
    thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response

    <PhilA2> LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos�

    <francois> [89]LC-2047

      [89]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047

    <PhilA2> LC-2066 we resolved yes to

    <francois> [90]LC-2064

      [90]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2064

    <PhilA2> LC-2068 from MNot and we resolved yes and updated
    references as a reult

    <francois> [91]LC-2068

      [91]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2068

    <PhilA2> LC-2070 - same

    <francois> [92]LC-2070

      [92]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2070

    <PhilA2> LC-2081 - already resolved yes to this

    <francois> [93]LC-2008

      [93]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2008

    <PhilA2> LC-2081 already resolved yes. Same comment about moving to
    informativbe

    <francois> [94]LC-2081

      [94]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2081

    <francois> [95]LC-2013

      [95]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2013

    <PhilA2> LC-2013 from Jos� resolved yes

    <francois> [96]LC-2026

      [96]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2026

    <PhilA2> LC-2026 and 2027 need resolving

    <PhilA2> I suggest the same resolution as on other HTTPS ones.

    <PhilA2> s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was
    insufficient overlap with this work//

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <francois> [97]LC-2027

      [97]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2027

    <brucel> Can we have a convo about canvas and SVG for some light
    relief please?

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added
    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added text to
    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern

    <PhilA2> Jo: and finally... 2095 from Julian Reschke

    <francois> [98]LC-1995

      [98]
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1995

    <PhilA2> .. we agree. The link header was removed a long time ago

    <PhilA2> Jo: LC comment bashing is finished.

    <PhilA2> Francois might have missed one or two

    <DKA> hallelujah

    <PhilA2> .. I still see one that is opened. DId we do 2053?

    <DKA> Can we resolve to "lets roll" now?

    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else we need to do on comments, Francois?

    <PhilA2> Francois: We have missed 2051 which is still pending

    <PhilA2> .. it's on Eduardo.

    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resoved no when I look at it

    <PhilA2> Francois: OK, I'll send the LC comments as soon as possible
    when the spec is published

    <PhilA2> Jo: Thank you all

    <PhilA2> Jo: Light confection for next week

    <PhilA2> PhilA: revises his suggestion for supplement cf. addendum

    <brucel> hugs

    <PhilA2> Jo: Can't do it now. I'm thinking 'companion'

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]
      _________________________________________________________


     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [99]scribe.perl version 1.135
     ([100]CVS log)
     $Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:32 $
      _________________________________________________________

      [99] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [100] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
Check for newer version at [101]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/200
2/scribe/

     [101] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/BO/BP/
Succeeded: s/Sahll/Shall/
Succeeded: s/WE/We/
Succeeded: s/2097/1997/
Succeeded: s/own/Owen/
Succeeded: s/bater/Baker/
Succeeded: s/LC-2019/2090/
Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient
  overlap with this work//
FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient ov
erlap with this work//
Found Scribe: Phil
Found Scribe: PhilA

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 448 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Scribes: Phil, PhilA
Default Present: francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DK
A
Present: francois jo EdC Phil_Archer SeanP adam jeffs DKA
Regrets: tomhume manrique yeliz achuter sangwhan
Agenda: [102]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/00
00.html
Found Date: 06 Oct 2009
Guessing minutes URL: [103]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.ht
ml
People with action items:

     [102] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
     [103] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html

    End of [104]scribe.perl diagnostic output]

     [104] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm



--


Phil Archer
W3C Mobile Web Initiative
http://www.w3.org/Mobile

http://philarcher.org

[Luca Passani]

I notice that you have resolved no to all the points I had raised.
Unfortunately, there is no way for me to track back my original
comments, because links like this are password protected:

http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 


How can I access the comments? I may want to raise a formal objection to
be reviewed by the Director....

Thank you

Luca

Phil Archer wrote:

> Minutes from today's MWBP telecon are pasted below and are also
> available at http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html
>
> You'll notice that the bulk of the call was taken up with going
> through all the LC comments on the CT Guidelines. DONE!!
>
>
>    [2]Agenda
>
>       [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
>
>    See also: [3]IRC log
>
>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc
>
> Attendees
>
>    Present
>           francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DKA
>
>    Regrets
>           tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan
>
>    Chair
>           jo
>
>    Scribe
>           Phil, PhilA
>
> Contents
>
>      * [4]Topics
>          1. [5]Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
>          2. [6]Clock changes
>          3. [7]Update on BP 2.
>          4. [8]Addendum
>          5. [9]CT Guidelines
>      * [10]Summary of Action Items
>      _________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>    <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2009
>
>    <PhilA2> scribe: Phil
>
>    <PhilA2> scribe: PhilA
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has
>    gone to Trinidad
>
>    <francois> [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech]
>
>    <PhilA2> .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some
>    observers from T&T
>
>    <brucel> hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps!
>
>    <jo> from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of
>    Trinidad and Tobago
>
>    <jeffs> <wavings/>
>
>    <jo> welcome to our observers
>
>    <jeffs> tnx
>
> Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP
>    and one on CT leaving half a day for admin
>
>    <PhilA2> .. if you have any other agenda items let me know
>
> Clock changes
>
>    <PhilA2> PhilA: Europe will be 31/10
>
>    <PhilA2> .. (last Sat in October)
>
>    <francois> [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179
>
>      [11] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179
>
>    <francois> 1 November 2009
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time
>
> Update on BP 2.
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: We're on target for transition this week?
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: Yes - should be later today
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else on BP 2?
>
>    <PhilA2> Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the
>    'cleaning up stuff'
>
> Addendum
>
>    <PhilA2> FD: Philipp's comment is that the name addendum suggests
>    that we're adding more normative content - what it needs is
>    something more like what it is
>
>    <francois> Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence
>
>    <PhilA2> francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that
>    we're extending it which we're really not.
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: SO what shall we do Francois?
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo?
>
>    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation?
>
>    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance?
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again?
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BP in a normative
>    way
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it
>    clear that it's not normative?
>
>    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title
>
>    <EdC> Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the
>    beginning of the document?
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
>    document
>
>    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
>    document because the document contains more than just evaluation of
>    conformance to Best Practices
>
>    <jo> [12]Current Draft
>
>      [12]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best
>    Practices
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Shall we change the abstract to be more clear
>
>    <jo> current abstract:
>
>    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
>    [MWBP] by providing additional evaluations of conformance to Best
>    Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of
>    Best Practice statements.
>
>    <jo> proposed abstract:
>
>    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
>    [MWBP] by providing additional non-normative evaluations of
>    conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional
>    interpretations of Best Practice statements.
>
>    <PhilA2> Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP
>
>    <EdC> Is the word "clarification" what is missing?
>
>    <jo> ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative
>    extension - PH requests we find a new name for it
>
>    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-300 - Addendum to BP reads as though it is
>    a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it ;
>    please complete additional details at
>    [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit .
>
>      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit
>
> CT Guidelines
>
>    <francois> [14]List of last call comments
>
>      [14]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions.
>    Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: No, it's going to ship today
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back
>    to the CT landscape and test suite
>
>    <PhilA2> JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo
>
>    <francois> [15]LC-2025
>
>      [15]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: I don't even remember writing that one...
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: This dates back over a year
>
>    <PhilA2> .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to
>    the points over the last year
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: Yes
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main
>    thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters
>    points more than it did at least
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust
>    of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points
>    more than it did at least
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker
>
>    <jo> [16]LC-2043
>
>      [16]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 
>
>
>    <francois> [17]LC-2043
>
>      [17]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: He's saying it needs to be guidelines and not a
>    protocol. I think we've done that and followed a number of very
>    useful comments he made.
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resolved yes
>
>    <PhilA2> .. and to use existing text
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
>    proposed response
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
>    proposed response
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2097
>
>    <francois> [18]LC-2097
>
>      [18]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: That's on OPEF - Open Pluggabel Edge Services. Comment
>    from Internet Architecture Board. We should make reference to the ??
>    discussion which we have done
>
>    <PhilA2> .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great
>    length
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
>    proposed response
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
>    proposed response
>
>    <francois> [19]LC-2089
>
>      [19]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Next up is LC-2089
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT
>    must take place
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
>    comment
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
>    comment
>
>    <francois> [20]LC-2065
>
>      [20]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column
>
>    <PhilA2> .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added
>    an appendix
>
>    <PhilA2> .. no need for a formal resolution.
>
>    <francois> [21]LC-2018
>
>      [21]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> .. move on to LC-2018
>
>    <PhilA2> .. from Michael McQueen
>
>    <PhilA2> Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the
>    title of the document
>
>    <francois> [22]LC-2050
>
>      [22]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> .. LC-2050
>
>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo
>
>    <PhilA2> We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some
>    definitions around
>
>    <EdC> ok with me.
>
>    <francois> [23]LC-2067
>
>      [23]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes
>
>    <PhilA2> .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD
>    statements
>
>    <francois> [24]LC-2003
>
>      [24]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2003
>
>    <PhilA2> .. from Luca P
>
>    <PhilA2> We have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open
>    for discussion
>
>    <PhilA2> .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do
>    what it does. Just the output
>
>    <francois> [25]LC-2034
>
>      [25]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2034 from Mark Baker
>
>    <PhilA2> .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed
>    is "we don't see any reason why"
>
>    <PhilA2> So already resolved...
>
>    <francois> [26]LC-2019
>
>      [26]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2019
>
>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo again
>
>    <PhilA2> We have already resolved partial on that
>
>    <EdC> ok.
>
>    <francois> [27]LC-2044
>
>      [27]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2044
>
>    <PhilA2> Resolved partial on already
>
>    <PhilA2> The comment was that there is no way of determining whether
>    the request is coming from a Web browser or not. WE did change the
>    text a little as he's right.
>
>    <francois> [28]LC-2069
>
>      [28]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [29]LC-1996
>
>      [29]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Removed the normative statement on web browser detection
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-1996 from Luca
>
>    <PhilA2> Have resolved no already
>
>    <PhilA2> Although we comment that we have altered the relevant
>    section a lot already
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: there are more similar comments
>
>    <francois> [30]LC-2071
>
>      [30]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved
>    no on this
>
>    <francois> [31]LC-2072
>
>      [31]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [32]LC-2073
>
>      [32]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion
>
>    <PhilA2> Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now?
>
>    <PhilA2> francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs
>    are the same website or not?
>
>    <francois> [33]LC-2049
>
>      [33]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2049 from Eduardo
>
>    <PhilA2> Resolved no
>
>    <francois> [34]LC-2017
>
>      [34]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> We have resolved no on this
>
>    <francois> [35]LC-2036
>
>      [35]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one
>
>    <PhilA2> Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we
>    say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback
>
>    <francois> [36]LC-2053
>
>      [36]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> This one is open
>
>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo
>
>    <PhilA2> We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid.
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: Hang on...
>
>    <brucel> Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome
>    diversion from the excitement
>    [37]http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/
>
>      [37] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But...
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond
>    that we hope the current version of the document addresses this
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close
>    it
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: happy with the resolution
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that
>    we hope the current version of the document addresses this
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate
>    response for this one
>
>    <francois> [38]LC-2005
>
>      [38]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005 
>
>
>    <francois> [39]LC-2038
>
>      [39]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines
>
>    <francois> [40]LC-2054
>
>      [40]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it
>
>    <francois> [41]LC-2074
>
>      [41]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2074 from MNot
>
>    <PhilA2> we have resolved no to this
>
>    <francois> [42]LC-2075
>
>      [42]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> .. again about re-issuing requests
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely
>    messes up some applications
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people
>
>    <PhilA2> .. we have already resolved no on 2074
>
>    <francois> [43]LC-2037
>
>      [43]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2037 from Mark Baker
>
>    <PhilA2> We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now
>
>    <francois> [44]LC-2076
>
>      [44]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2076 from MNOt
>
>    <PhilA2> .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various
>    items of text
>
>    <francois> [45]LC-2039
>
>      [45]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes
>
>    <PhilA2> .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed
>
>    <francois> [46]LC-1997
>
>      [46]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-1997
>
>    <PhilA2> from Luca - we have rsolved no
>
>    <francois> [47]LC-2046
>
>      [47]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [48]LC-2014
>
>      [48]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2014 from Sean Owen have resolved partial
>
>    <PhilA2> we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2077 from MNot
>
>    <francois> [49]LC-2077
>
>      [49]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Resolved no
>
>    <PhilA2> We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to
>    sort it out
>
>    <francois> [50]LC-2006
>
>      [50]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> We have resolved no for LC-2006
>
>    <francois> [51]LC-2040
>
>      [51]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2040 from Mark Baker
>
>    <PhilA2> we need to resolve this one
>
>    <PhilA2> Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should
>    be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ...
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
>    response
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
>    response
>
>    <francois> [52]LC-2078
>
>      [52]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078 
>
>
>    <francois> [53]LC-2007
>
>      [53]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the
>    doc
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2007 which we have resolved yes
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that
>    referred to server behaviour
>
>    <francois> [54]LC-2079
>
>      [54]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to
>
>    <francois> [55]LC-2080
>
>      [55]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Moved into informative section
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin
>    servers
>
>    <francois> [56]LC-2041
>
>      [56]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041 
>
>
>    <francois> [57]LC-2010
>
>      [57]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial
>
>    <francois> [58]LC-2011
>
>      [58]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [59]LC-2009
>
>      [59]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2009 - resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [60]LC-2020
>
>      [60]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no
>
>    <francois> [61]LC-2045
>
>      [61]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2091 from Luca
>
>    <francois> [62]LC-2091
>
>      [62]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> REsolved no
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we
>    needed to add text although we agree with the point
>
>    <francois> [63]LC-2082
>
>      [63]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [64]LC-2042
>
>      [64]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point
>
>    <francois> [65]LC-2083
>
>      [65]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we
>    resolved no
>
>    <francois> [66]LC-2084
>
>      [66]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2084 resolved partial
>
>    <francois> [67]LC-2090
>
>      [67]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> 2090 from Luca we resolved no
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no
>
>    <francois> [68]LC-1998
>
>      [68]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998 
>
>
>    <francois> [69]LC-1999
>
>      [69]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no
>
>    <PhilA2> EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct
>
>    <PhilA2> actually we do endorse the heuristics
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from
>    the reply
>
>    <PhilA2> .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not
>    part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2048 from Eduardo
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't
>    actually formulated a proposed response to this
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole
>    remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining
>    URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: mumbles on a bit...
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: no text for this one
>
>    <francois> [70]LC-2000
>
>      [70]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000 
>
>
>    <francois> [71]LC-2022
>
>      [71]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 
>
>
>    <francois> [72]LC-2002
>
>      [72]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002 
>
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
>    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
>    than those listed in Appendix E
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
>    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
>    than those listed in Appendix E
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes
>    etc.
>
>    <francois> [73]LC-2052
>
>      [73]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052 
>
>
>    <francois> [74]LC-2021
>
>      [74]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial
>
>    <francois> [75]LC-2022
>
>      [75]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 
>
>
>    <francois> [76]LC-2023
>
>      [76]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo
>
>    <francois> [77]LC-2085
>
>      [77]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2085 from Tlr
>
>    <PhilA2> Link re-writing
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here?
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your
>    comments and have added textt reflect your concerns
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments
>    and have added textt reflect your concerns
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo
>
>    <PhilA2> Oh, maybe we do have a resolution
>
>    <PhilA2> ...We're going to resolve yes
>
>    <francois> [78]LC-2028
>
>      [78]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028 
>
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment
>
>    <francois> [79]LC-2029
>
>      [79]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029 
>
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [80]LC-2030
>
>      [80]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2015 from Sean Owen
>
>    <francois> [81]LC-2015
>
>      [81]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones
>
>    <EdC> It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG!
>
>    <jo> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this
>    section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2031 from Eduardo.
>
>    <francois> [82]LC-2031
>
>      [82]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031 
>
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing
>    with the comments on HTTPS
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [83]LC-2016
>
>      [83]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2016 is again similar I think
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [84]LC-2032
>
>      [84]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [85]LC-2001
>
>      [85]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: 2004 the same
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [86]LC-2033
>
>      [86]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: and 2024
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2051 something new from Eduardo
>
>    <francois> [87]LC-2004
>
>      [87]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004 
>
>
>    <francois> [88]LC-2051
>
>      [88]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051 
>
>
>    <EdC> LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago.
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was
>    insufficient overlap with this work
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient
>    overlap with this work
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2047
>
>    <PhilA2> Done
>
>    <PhilA2> 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that
>    thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos�
>
>    <francois> [89]LC-2047
>
>      [89]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2066 we resolved yes to
>
>    <francois> [90]LC-2064
>
>      [90]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2064 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2068 from MNot and we resolved yes and updated
>    references as a reult
>
>    <francois> [91]LC-2068
>
>      [91]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2068 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2070 - same
>
>    <francois> [92]LC-2070
>
>      [92]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2070 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2081 - already resolved yes to this
>
>    <francois> [93]LC-2008
>
>      [93]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2008 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2081 already resolved yes. Same comment about moving to
>    informativbe
>
>    <francois> [94]LC-2081
>
>      [94]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2081 
>
>
>    <francois> [95]LC-2013
>
>      [95]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2013 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2013 from Jos� resolved yes
>
>    <francois> [96]LC-2026
>
>      [96]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2026 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> LC-2026 and 2027 need resolving
>
>    <PhilA2> I suggest the same resolution as on other HTTPS ones.
>
>    <PhilA2> s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was
>    insufficient overlap with this work//
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <francois> [97]LC-2027
>
>      [97]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2027 
>
>
>    <brucel> Can we have a convo about canvas and SVG for some light
>    relief please?
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added
>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added text to
>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: and finally... 2095 from Julian Reschke
>
>    <francois> [98]LC-1995
>
>      [98]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1995 
>
>
>    <PhilA2> .. we agree. The link header was removed a long time ago
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC comment bashing is finished.
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois might have missed one or two
>
>    <DKA> hallelujah
>
>    <PhilA2> .. I still see one that is opened. DId we do 2053?
>
>    <DKA> Can we resolve to "lets roll" now?
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else we need to do on comments, Francois?
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: We have missed 2051 which is still pending
>
>    <PhilA2> .. it's on Eduardo.
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resoved no when I look at it
>
>    <PhilA2> Francois: OK, I'll send the LC comments as soon as possible
>    when the spec is published
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Thank you all
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Light confection for next week
>
>    <PhilA2> PhilA: revises his suggestion for supplement cf. addendum
>
>    <brucel> hugs
>
>    <PhilA2> Jo: Can't do it now. I'm thinking 'companion'
>
> Summary of Action Items
>
>    [End of minutes]
>      _________________________________________________________
>
>
>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [99]scribe.perl version 1.135
>     ([100]CVS log)
>     $Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:32 $
>      _________________________________________________________
>
>      [99] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>     [100] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
> Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>
>    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
> Check for newer version at [101]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/200
> 2/scribe/
>
>     [101] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
>
> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
>
> Succeeded: s/BO/BP/
> Succeeded: s/Sahll/Shall/
> Succeeded: s/WE/We/
> Succeeded: s/2097/1997/
> Succeeded: s/own/Owen/
> Succeeded: s/bater/Baker/
> Succeeded: s/LC-2019/2090/
> Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient
>  overlap with this work//
> FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient ov
> erlap with this work//
> Found Scribe: Phil
> Found Scribe: PhilA
>
> WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 448 total lines.)
> Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?
>
> Scribes: Phil, PhilA
> Default Present: francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DK
> A
> Present: francois jo EdC Phil_Archer SeanP adam jeffs DKA
> Regrets: tomhume manrique yeliz achuter sangwhan
> Agenda: [102]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/00
> 00.html
> Found Date: 06 Oct 2009
> Guessing minutes URL: [103]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.ht
> ml
> People with action items:
>
>     [102]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
>     [103] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html
>
>    End of [104]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
>
>     [104] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>
>
>

[Francois Daoust]

Hi Luca,

You should have received or are about to receive replies to your
comments. The email contains instructions on how to proceed to agree,
disagree or raise a formal objection to some particular point in the
guidelines.

Francois.

Luca Passani wrote:

>
> I notice that you have resolved no to all the points I had raised.
> Unfortunately, there is no way for me to track back my original
> comments, because links like this are password protected:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 
>
>
> How can I access the comments? I may want to raise a formal objection to
> be reviewed by the Director....
>
> Thank you
>
> Luca
>
> Phil Archer wrote:
>> Minutes from today's MWBP telecon are pasted below and are also
>> available at http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html
>>
>> You'll notice that the bulk of the call was taken up with going
>> through all the LC comments on the CT Guidelines. DONE!!
>>
>>
>>    [2]Agenda
>>
>>       [2]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
>>
>>    See also: [3]IRC log
>>
>>       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-irc
>>
>> Attendees
>>
>>    Present
>>           francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DKA
>>
>>    Regrets
>>           tomhume, manrique, yeliz, achuter, sangwhan
>>
>>    Chair
>>           jo
>>
>>    Scribe
>>           Phil, PhilA
>>
>> Contents
>>
>>      * [4]Topics
>>          1. [5]Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
>>          2. [6]Clock changes
>>          3. [7]Update on BP 2.
>>          4. [8]Addendum
>>          5. [9]CT Guidelines
>>      * [10]Summary of Action Items
>>      _________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>    <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2009
>>
>>    <PhilA2> scribe: Phil
>>
>>    <PhilA2> scribe: PhilA
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Jeff S has escaped the autumnal New York landscape has
>>    gone to Trinidad
>>
>>    <francois> [ a few profs from the COSTAATT Dept of Info Tech]
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. he's on a sabatical in Trinidad so we have some
>>    observers from T&T
>>
>>    <brucel> hi Trinidad and Tobago peeps!
>>
>>    <jo> from the College of Science, Technology, and Applied Arts of
>>    Trinidad and Tobago
>>
>>    <jeffs> <wavings/>
>>
>>    <jo> welcome to our observers
>>
>>    <jeffs> tnx
>>
>> Face to Face 9 - 11 December in London
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: My proposal is to spend a day on LC comments from ABP
>>    and one on CT leaving half a day for admin
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. if you have any other agenda items let me know
>>
>> Clock changes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> PhilA: Europe will be 31/10
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. (last Sat in October)
>>
>>    <francois> [11]http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179
>>
>>      [11] http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179
>>
>>    <francois> 1 November 2009
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: so we end more or lessa t the same time
>>
>> Update on BP 2.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: We're on target for transition this week?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: Yes - should be later today
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else on BP 2?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Adam: Not from me. Thanks to fd for sorting out the
>>    'cleaning up stuff'
>>
>> Addendum
>>
>>    <PhilA2> FD: Philipp's comment is that the name addendum suggests
>>    that we're adding more normative content - what it needs is
>>    something more like what it is
>>
>>    <francois> Suggested title: Evaluation criteria for MWBP adherence
>>
>>    <PhilA2> francois: Where I agree is that addendum suggests that
>>    we're extending it which we're really not.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: SO what shall we do Francois?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: Kai isn't here. What do you think Jo?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Extended Mobile Best Practice Evaluation and Conformance?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: What's wrong with calling it an addendum again?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: It sounds as if we're extending BP in a normative
>>    way
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: I'm sort of happy with addendum. Can we just make it
>>    clear that it's not normative?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with the present title
>>
>>    <EdC> Does this mean an additional explanatory sentence at the
>>    beginning of the document?
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
>>    document
>>
>>    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Stick with Addendum as title of the
>>    document because the document contains more than just evaluation of
>>    conformance to Best Practices
>>
>>    <jo> [12]Current Draft
>>
>>      [12]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/mobileOKPro/drafts/ED-mobileOK-pro10-tests-20090923 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> PhilA: Current title is Addendum to Mobile Web Best
>>    Practices
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Shall we change the abstract to be more clear
>>
>>    <jo> current abstract:
>>
>>    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
>>    [MWBP] by providing additional evaluations of conformance to Best
>>    Practice statements and by providing additional interpretations of
>>    Best Practice statements.
>>
>>    <jo> proposed abstract:
>>
>>    <jo> This document supplements W3C Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0
>>    [MWBP] by providing additional non-normative evaluations of
>>    conformance to Best Practice statements and by providing additional
>>    interpretations of Best Practice statements.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Extended evaluation and interpretation of MWBP
>>
>>    <EdC> Is the word "clarification" what is missing?
>>
>>    <jo> ISSUE: Addendum to BP reads as though it is a normative
>>    extension - PH requests we find a new name for it
>>
>>    <trackbot> Created ISSUE-300 - Addendum to BP reads as though it is
>>    a normative extension - PH requests we find a new name for it ;
>>    please complete additional details at
>>    [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit .
>>
>>      [13] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/track/issues/300/edit
>>
>> CT Guidelines
>>
>>    <francois> [14]List of last call comments
>>
>>      [14]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/ 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Would like to agree the text of LC comment resolutions.
>>    Want to scoot through at one per 15 seconds
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Can you give us an update on LC publication
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: No, it's going to ship today
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Well then let's get on with it... and we'll come back
>>    to the CT landscape and test suite
>>
>>    <PhilA2> JO: LC comment 2025 from Eduardo
>>
>>    <francois> [15]LC-2025
>>
>>      [15]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2025 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: I don't even remember writing that one...
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: I think we have done most of what is said there
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: This dates back over a year
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. would you be happy to accept that we have attended to
>>    the points over the last year
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: Yes
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main
>>    thrust of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters
>>    points more than it did at least
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: re LC-2025 we have attended to the main thrust
>>    of the comments here and the document reflects the commenters points
>>    more than it did at least
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Moving on to 2043 from Mark Baker
>>
>>    <jo> [16]LC-2043
>>
>>      [16]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [17]LC-2043
>>
>>      [17]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2043 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: He's saying it needs to be guidelines and not a
>>    protocol. I think we've done that and followed a number of very
>>    useful comments he made.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resolved yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. and to use existing text
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
>>    proposed response
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2043 resolve yes and use existing
>>    proposed response
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2097
>>
>>    <francois> [18]LC-2097
>>
>>      [18]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2097 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: That's on OPEF - Open Pluggabel Edge Services. Comment
>>    from Internet Architecture Board. We should make reference to the ??
>>    discussion which we have done
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. we have also discussed the content of RFC 2238 at great
>>    length
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
>>    proposed response
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2097 resolve yes and use existing
>>    proposed response
>>
>>    <francois> [19]LC-2089
>>
>>      [19]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2089 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Next up is LC-2089
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: proposed resolution is no as we don't specify that CT
>>    must take place
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
>>    comment
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2089 resolve NO, and use existing
>>    comment
>>
>>    <francois> [20]LC-2065
>>
>>      [20]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2065 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2065 from WAP review. He writes a great column
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. looks as if we have a partial resolution already
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: On that one we're saying that we agree and have added
>>    an appendix
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. no need for a formal resolution.
>>
>>    <francois> [21]LC-2018
>>
>>      [21]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2018 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. move on to LC-2018
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. from Michael McQueen
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Says title is uninformative. We agree and have changed the
>>    title of the document
>>
>>    <francois> [22]LC-2050
>>
>>      [22]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2050 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. LC-2050
>>
>>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We are resolving partial on that in that we have moved some
>>    definitions around
>>
>>    <EdC> ok with me.
>>
>>    <francois> [23]LC-2067
>>
>>      [23]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2067 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Next one from MNot. We've already resolved yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. we have detailed why we're not following the SHOULD
>>    statements
>>
>>    <francois> [24]LC-2003
>>
>>      [24]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2003 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2003
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. from Luca P
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We have resolved previously 'no' as only the text is open
>>    for discussion
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. the doc is not about how a transforming proxy should do
>>    what it does. Just the output
>>
>>    <francois> [25]LC-2034
>>
>>      [25]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2034 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2034 from Mark Baker
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. about the methods applicable and the response proposed
>>    is "we don't see any reason why"
>>
>>    <PhilA2> So already resolved...
>>
>>    <francois> [26]LC-2019
>>
>>      [26]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2019 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2019
>>
>>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo again
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We have already resolved partial on that
>>
>>    <EdC> ok.
>>
>>    <francois> [27]LC-2044
>>
>>      [27]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2044 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2044
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Resolved partial on already
>>
>>    <PhilA2> The comment was that there is no way of determining whether
>>    the request is coming from a Web browser or not. WE did change the
>>    text a little as he's right.
>>
>>    <francois> [28]LC-2069
>>
>>      [28]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2069 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2069 from MNot. Already resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [29]LC-1996
>>
>>      [29]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1996 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Removed the normative statement on web browser detection
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-1996 from Luca
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Have resolved no already
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Although we comment that we have altered the relevant
>>    section a lot already
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: there are more similar comments
>>
>>    <francois> [30]LC-2071
>>
>>      [30]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2071 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> This is about no transform being respected. We've resolved
>>    no on this
>>
>>    <francois> [31]LC-2072
>>
>>      [31]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2072 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2072 also from Mark Not - resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [32]LC-2073
>>
>>      [32]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2073 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2073 from MNot. Resolved no on this occasion
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Have we put mandatory heuristics on there now?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> francois? No - this is about how to decide whether 2 URIs
>>    are the same website or not?
>>
>>    <francois> [33]LC-2049
>>
>>      [33]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2049 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2049 from Eduardo
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Resolved no
>>
>>    <francois> [34]LC-2017
>>
>>      [34]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2017 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We have resolved no on this
>>
>>    <francois> [35]LC-2036
>>
>>      [35]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2036 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Again from Mark Baker and we have resolved no on this one
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Mainly because we object to people using multiple Gets - we
>>    say it should be reduced to a minimum and refer to our feedback
>>
>>    <francois> [36]LC-2053
>>
>>      [36]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2053 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> This one is open
>>
>>    <PhilA2> From Eduardo
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We haven't got a specific response to this I'm afraid.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: Hang on...
>>
>>    <brucel> Observers in Trinidad and Tobago might find this a welcome
>>    diversion from the excitement
>>    [37]http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/
>>
>>      [37] http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/shipping/
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: It seems that something will have to be found. But...
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond
>>    that we hope the current version of the document addresses this
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: I see that at the F2F this was discussed. Let's close
>>    it
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: happy with the resolution
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2053, resolve partial and respond that
>>    we hope the current version of the document addresses this
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2005 is already resolved no, we can use the boiler plate
>>    response for this one
>>
>>    <francois> [38]LC-2005
>>
>>      [38]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2005 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [39]LC-2038
>>
>>      [39]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2038 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2038 from Mark baker. We have resolved partial
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: We say it's not BPs it is guidelines
>>
>>    <francois> [40]LC-2054
>>
>>      [40]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2054 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2054 from Eduardo again. We have resolved no already
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: Its has the boiler plate on it
>>
>>    <francois> [41]LC-2074
>>
>>      [41]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2074 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2074 from MNot
>>
>>    <PhilA2> we have resolved no to this
>>
>>    <francois> [42]LC-2075
>>
>>      [42]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2075 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. again about re-issuing requests
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: Content providers don't like it because it definitely
>>    messes up some applications
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: we don't prohibit it, just note that it upsets people
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. we have already resolved no on 2074
>>
>>    <francois> [43]LC-2037
>>
>>      [43]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2037 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2037 from Mark Baker
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We have removed all references to HTTP PUT now
>>
>>    <francois> [44]LC-2076
>>
>>      [44]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2076 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2076 from MNOt
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. we have resolved yes on this one and changed various
>>    items of text
>>
>>    <francois> [45]LC-2039
>>
>>      [45]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2039 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2039 from Mark Baker resolved yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. about consistency of HTTP Header and we agreed
>>
>>    <francois> [46]LC-1997
>>
>>      [46]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1997 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-1997
>>
>>    <PhilA2> from Luca - we have rsolved no
>>
>>    <francois> [47]LC-2046
>>
>>      [47]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2046 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2046 from Eduardo we have resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [48]LC-2014
>>
>>      [48]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2014 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2014 from Sean Owen have resolved partial
>>
>>    <PhilA2> we said that what he was saying was prob out of scope
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2077 from MNot
>>
>>    <francois> [49]LC-2077
>>
>>      [49]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2077 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Resolved no
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We've said we're reflecting ucrrent practice and trying to
>>    sort it out
>>
>>    <francois> [50]LC-2006
>>
>>      [50]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2006 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> We have resolved no for LC-2006
>>
>>    <francois> [51]LC-2040
>>
>>      [51]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2040 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2040 from Mark Baker
>>
>>    <PhilA2> we need to resolve this one
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Mark's comment is that we propose a protocol and so should
>>    be in an I-D not a W3C Note so ...
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
>>    response
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2040 resolve yes, and use proposed
>>    response
>>
>>    <francois> [52]LC-2078
>>
>>      [52]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2078 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [53]LC-2007
>>
>>      [53]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2007 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2078 from MNot we have resolved yes and clarified the
>>    doc
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2007 which we have resolved yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: This was about removing the part of he doc that
>>    referred to server behaviour
>>
>>    <francois> [54]LC-2079
>>
>>      [54]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2079 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2079 which we have resolved yes to
>>
>>    <francois> [55]LC-2080
>>
>>      [55]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2080 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Moved into informative section
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2080 again from MNot and again resolved yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2041 from Mark Baker resolved yes again about origin
>>    servers
>>
>>    <francois> [56]LC-2041
>>
>>      [56]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2041 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [57]LC-2010
>>
>>      [57]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2010 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2010 from Jose - resolved partial
>>
>>    <francois> [58]LC-2011
>>
>>      [58]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2011 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2011 alsp from Jos� resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [59]LC-2009
>>
>>      [59]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2009 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2009 - resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [60]LC-2020
>>
>>      [60]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2020 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2020 from Eduardo - resolved no
>>
>>    <francois> [61]LC-2045
>>
>>      [61]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2045 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2025 also from Eduardo resolved paryial
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2091 from Luca
>>
>>    <francois> [62]LC-2091
>>
>>      [62]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2091 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> REsolved no
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: We only resolved no because we didn't feel we
>>    needed to add text although we agree with the point
>>
>>    <francois> [63]LC-2082
>>
>>      [63]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2082 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2082 from MNot resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [64]LC-2042
>>
>>      [64]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2042 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2042 from Mark Baker - we agree with his point
>>
>>    <francois> [65]LC-2083
>>
>>      [65]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2083 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2083 from Mnot - about sniffing for error messages we
>>    resolved no
>>
>>    <francois> [66]LC-2084
>>
>>      [66]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2084 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2084 resolved partial
>>
>>    <francois> [67]LC-2090
>>
>>      [67]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2090 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> 2090 from Luca we resolved no
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-1998 again from Luca again resolved no
>>
>>    <francois> [68]LC-1998
>>
>>      [68]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1998 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [69]LC-1999
>>
>>      [69]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1999 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-1999 from Luca and we resolved no
>>
>>    <PhilA2> EdC: just a second. Is 1998 really correct
>>
>>    <PhilA2> actually we do endorse the heuristics
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: That is true - we should remove that last sentence from
>>    the reply
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. thank you Eduardo for spotting that one
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: Anotehr thing - the application/xhtml+xml is not
>>    part of the list as it is not a clear indication of mobile content
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2048 from Eduardo
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: About adding things to the list of URIs. We haven't
>>    actually formulated a proposed response to this
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole
>>    remaining URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: On LC-2048, As discussed, the sole remaining
>>    URI Pattern is listed in Appendix E
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2000 from Luca - resolved no
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: mumbles on a bit...
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2022 already resolved partial from Luca
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: no text for this one
>>
>>    <francois> [70]LC-2000
>>
>>      [70]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2000 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [71]LC-2022
>>
>>      [71]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [72]LC-2002
>>
>>      [72]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2002 
>>
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
>>    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
>>    than those listed in Appendix E
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2002 - text is, after considerable
>>    discussion the group decided not to recommend any URI patterns other
>>    than those listed in Appendix E
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2052 resolved partial from Eduardo about Doctypes
>>    etc.
>>
>>    <francois> [73]LC-2052
>>
>>      [73]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2052 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [74]LC-2021
>>
>>      [74]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2021 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2021 also from Eduardo. Resolved basically yes
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2022 from Eduardo resolved partial
>>
>>    <francois> [75]LC-2022
>>
>>      [75]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2022 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [76]LC-2023
>>
>>      [76]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2023 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2023 again resolved partial from Eduardo
>>
>>    <francois> [77]LC-2085
>>
>>      [77]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2085 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2085 from Tlr
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Link re-writing
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Who has a proposed response for me here?
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your
>>    comments and have added textt reflect your concerns
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: Ref LC-2085 resolved yes, we note your comments
>>    and have added textt reflect your concerns
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2028 no resolution as yet from Eduardo
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Oh, maybe we do have a resolution
>>
>>    <PhilA2> ...We're going to resolve yes
>>
>>    <francois> [78]LC-2028
>>
>>      [78]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2028 
>>
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2028 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2029 from Eduardo also pending
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: I propsoe the same answer as previous comment
>>
>>    <francois> [79]LC-2029
>>
>>      [79]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2029 
>>
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2029 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [80]LC-2030
>>
>>      [80]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2030 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2030 - same again, resolve yes
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2030 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2015 from Sean Owen
>>
>>    <francois> [81]LC-2015
>>
>>      [81]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2015 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: I propose we say yes as previous ones
>>
>>    <EdC> It is yes because it has been taken almost as such in the CTG!
>>
>>    <jo> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to this
>>    section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2015 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2031 from Eduardo.
>>
>>    <francois> [82]LC-2031
>>
>>      [82]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2031 
>>
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> I think we need the same resolution again. we're agreeing
>>    with the comments on HTTPS
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2031 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [83]LC-2016
>>
>>      [83]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2016 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2016 is again similar I think
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2016 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [84]LC-2032
>>
>>      [84]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2032 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2032 - again, I think, the smae resolution applies
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2032 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2001 from Luca. Same resolution
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2001 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [85]LC-2001
>>
>>      [85]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2001 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2033 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: 2004 the same
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2004 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [86]LC-2033
>>
>>      [86]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2033 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: and 2024
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2024 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2051 something new from Eduardo
>>
>>    <francois> [87]LC-2004
>>
>>      [87]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2004 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [88]LC-2051
>>
>>      [88]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2051 
>>
>>
>>    <EdC> LC-2051 was handled by Fran�ois many months ago.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: we need a resolution - no - I think
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was
>>    insufficient overlap with this work
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2051 resolve no, there was insufficient
>>    overlap with this work
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC-2047
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Done
>>
>>    <PhilA2> 2024 is a editorial comment - I think we agreed that
>>    thatwas incorrect but there's a polite response
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2064 we resolved yes for Jos�
>>
>>    <francois> [89]LC-2047
>>
>>      [89]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2047 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2066 we resolved yes to
>>
>>    <francois> [90]LC-2064
>>
>>      [90]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2064 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2068 from MNot and we resolved yes and updated
>>    references as a reult
>>
>>    <francois> [91]LC-2068
>>
>>      [91]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2068 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2070 - same
>>
>>    <francois> [92]LC-2070
>>
>>      [92]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2070 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2081 - already resolved yes to this
>>
>>    <francois> [93]LC-2008
>>
>>      [93]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2008 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2081 already resolved yes. Same comment about moving to
>>    informativbe
>>
>>    <francois> [94]LC-2081
>>
>>      [94]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2081 
>>
>>
>>    <francois> [95]LC-2013
>>
>>      [95]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2013 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2013 from Jos� resolved yes
>>
>>    <francois> [96]LC-2026
>>
>>      [96]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2026 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> LC-2026 and 2027 need resolving
>>
>>    <PhilA2> I suggest the same resolution as on other HTTPS ones.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was
>>    insufficient overlap with this work//
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <francois> [97]LC-2027
>>
>>      [97]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/2027 
>>
>>
>>    <brucel> Can we have a convo about canvas and SVG for some light
>>    relief please?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added
>>    text to this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> RESOLUTION: ref LC-2027 resolve yes, we have added text to
>>    this section that goes some way to addressing your concern
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: and finally... 2095 from Julian Reschke
>>
>>    <francois> [98]LC-1995
>>
>>      [98]
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/37584/WD-ct-guidelines-20080801/1995 
>>
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. we agree. The link header was removed a long time ago
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: LC comment bashing is finished.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois might have missed one or two
>>
>>    <DKA> hallelujah
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. I still see one that is opened. DId we do 2053?
>>
>>    <DKA> Can we resolve to "lets roll" now?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Anything else we need to do on comments, Francois?
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: We have missed 2051 which is still pending
>>
>>    <PhilA2> .. it's on Eduardo.
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: It's resoved no when I look at it
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Francois: OK, I'll send the LC comments as soon as possible
>>    when the spec is published
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Thank you all
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Light confection for next week
>>
>>    <PhilA2> PhilA: revises his suggestion for supplement cf. addendum
>>
>>    <brucel> hugs
>>
>>    <PhilA2> Jo: Can't do it now. I'm thinking 'companion'
>>
>> Summary of Action Items
>>
>>    [End of minutes]
>>      _________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [99]scribe.perl version 1.135
>>     ([100]CVS log)
>>     $Date: 2009/10/06 15:07:32 $
>>      _________________________________________________________
>>
>>      [99] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>>     [100] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>>
>> Scribe.perl diagnostic output
>>
>>    [Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
>> This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20
>> Check for newer version at [101]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/200
>> 2/scribe/
>>
>>     [101] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
>>
>> Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
>>
>> Succeeded: s/BO/BP/
>> Succeeded: s/Sahll/Shall/
>> Succeeded: s/WE/We/
>> Succeeded: s/2097/1997/
>> Succeeded: s/own/Owen/
>> Succeeded: s/bater/Baker/
>> Succeeded: s/LC-2019/2090/
>> Succeeded: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient
>>  overlap with this work//
>> FAILED: s/RESOLUTION: ref LC-2026 resolve no, there was insufficient ov
>> erlap with this work//
>> Found Scribe: Phil
>> Found Scribe: PhilA
>>
>> WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 448 total lines.)
>> Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?
>>
>> Scribes: Phil, PhilA
>> Default Present: francois, jo, EdC, Phil_Archer, SeanP, adam, jeffs, DK
>> A
>> Present: francois jo EdC Phil_Archer SeanP adam jeffs DKA
>> Regrets: tomhume manrique yeliz achuter sangwhan
>> Agenda: [102]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/00
>> 00.html
>> Found Date: 06 Oct 2009
>> Guessing minutes URL: [103]http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.ht
>> ml
>> People with action items:
>>
>>     [102]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2009Oct/0000.html
>>     [103] http://www.w3.org/2009/10/06-bpwg-minutes.html
>>
>>    End of [104]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
>>
>>     [104] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>