New draft MWABP (20th Nov 09)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New draft MWABP (20th Nov 09)

Adam Connors
Hello,

I have just uploaded a new draft of MWABP, incorporating mostly the editorial changes discussed in the last editorial meeting and a couple of simple updates related to the LC comments.

Regarding the other LC comments I'm not sure what requires a resolution or not so we'll have to discuss in the next call, but I figured I should get this out in preparation for next wk.

Doc:

http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/BestPractices-2.0/ED-mobile-bp2-20091120

Diffs:

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fmwabp%2F&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20091120


@Francois -- what happens next ? Should this be published as an update to the LC version (the links will need fixing, I wasn't sure what format they would take once the LC was updated) ?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: adamconnors <[hidden email]>
Date: Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Subject: New draft MWABP (24th Sept 09)
To: [hidden email]


Minor rev. based on the discussion in last call.

Document:Diff from previous version:

http://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20090917&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2005%2FMWI%2FBPWG%2FGroup%2FDrafts%2FBestPractices-2.0%2FED-mobile-bp2-20090924

(Note: Diff looks like bottom of document is corrupted, but the document itself seems fine, so hopefully this is okay).

Thanks,


Adam.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New draft MWABP (20th Nov 09)

Francois Daoust
Hi Adam,

Adam Connors wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just uploaded a new draft of MWABP, incorporating mostly the
> editorial changes discussed in the last editorial meeting and a couple
> of simple updates related to the LC comments.

Thanks!

>
> Regarding the other LC comments I'm not sure what requires a resolution
> or not so we'll have to discuss in the next call, but I figured I should
> get this out in preparation for next wk.

A group resolution is basically needed for each and every last call
comment, for tracking purpose.


[...]
> @Francois -- what happens next ? Should this be published as an update
> to the LC version (the links will need fixing, I wasn't sure what format
> they would take once the LC was updated) ?

This is an editor's draft to support the group's discussions. The
published Last Call document is to remain as it stands and won't be
updated to point to this document. Discussions during the F2F should end
up with one of:
1. let's publish another Last Call as we've decided to make some
substantive changes to the document.
2. let's progress to Candidate Recommendation as we think the document
is stable and changes made since publication as Last Call are editorial
in essence.

I have updated the draft in place (a refresh might be needed) to point
out that it is an editor's draft (stylesheet updated and warning in the
Status of This Document added), have updated the links to previous and
latest versions and added a link to the diff.

Francois.