19:45:55 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 19:45:55 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/04/07-wai-wcag-irc 19:45:58 Zakim has joined #wai-wcag 19:46:02 zakim, this will be wcag 19:46:02 ok, wendy; I see WAI_WCAG()4:00PM scheduled to start in 14 minutes 19:46:53 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0012.html 19:47:10 agenda+ Techniques Task Force report 19:47:17 agenda+ Agenda review 19:47:34 agenda+ Parameters for choosing baselines described by the WCAG WG (introduce and form task force to investigate) 19:47:44 agenda+ Techniques analysis 19:47:52 agenda+ Conformance analysis / proposal 19:48:01 agenda+ Impact analysis for guideline 4.2 19:48:12 agenda+ (Time permitting...) Walk recently recommended changes to guidelines 19:48:21 agenda+ Plan for next week's discussion of structure prototype 19:49:18 bengt has joined #wai-wcag 19:50:47 Regrets: Jason White, Roberto Scano, Sebastiano Nutarelli, WATANABE Takayuki, Roberto Castaldo, Roberto Ellero 19:52:51 LucaMascaro has joined #wai-wcag 19:54:30 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 19:54:37 +??P3 19:56:34 +??P8 19:56:44 zakim, ??P8 is Bengt_Farre 19:56:44 +Bengt_Farre; got it 19:56:55 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 19:56:55 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 19:57:14 +John_Slatin 19:57:18 +Luca_Mascaro 19:57:41 +joeclark 19:57:47 Zakim, i am Luca_Mascaro 19:57:47 ok, LucaMascaro, I now associate you with Luca_Mascaro 19:57:52 zakim, I am Joe_Clark 19:57:52 sorry, joeclark, I do not see a party named 'Joe_Clark' 19:57:55 zakim, yvette 19:57:55 I don't understand 'yvette', Yvette_Hoitink 19:58:00 :-) 19:58:28 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 19:58:28 joe - are you calling into the telecon? 19:58:34 zakim is tracking who is on the telephone. 19:58:57 David has joined #wai-wcag 19:59:05 joe, after you call in you will need to associate your phone number with your irc nick. 19:59:08 Test 19:59:19 +Yvette_Hoitink 19:59:20 +??P12 19:59:28 zakim, ??P12 is Ben 19:59:28 +Ben; got it 19:59:36 -Bengt_Farre 19:59:38 zakim, I am Ben 19:59:38 ok, ben, I now associate you with Ben 19:59:41 +Wendy 19:59:50 +Dave_MacDonald 19:59:51 zakim, who's on the phone? 19:59:51 On the phone I see ??P3, John_Slatin, Luca_Mascaro, Yvette_Hoitink, Ben, Wendy, Dave_MacDonald 20:00:30 zakim, ??P3 is Joe_Clark 20:00:30 +Joe_Clark; got it 20:00:42 zakim, joeclark is Joe_Clark 20:00:42 +Joe_Clark; got it 20:00:55 +Gottfried 20:00:56 +Matt 20:01:15 mcmay has joined #wai-wcag 20:01:16 +[Microsoft] 20:01:16 zakim, mute me 20:01:17 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:01:17 zakim, Gottfried is Gregg 20:01:17 +Gregg; got it 20:01:20 zakim, unmute me 20:01:20 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 20:01:23 +Becky_Gibson 20:01:25 +??P14 20:01:25 zakim, [Microsft] is Mike 20:01:26 sorry, wendy, I do not recognize a party named '[Microsft]' 20:01:29 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 20:01:31 zakim, who's making noise? 20:01:40 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:01:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:01:42 On the phone I see Joe_Clark.a, John_Slatin, Luca_Mascaro, Yvette_Hoitink, Ben, Wendy, Dave_MacDonald, Gregg, Matt, [Microsoft], Becky_Gibson, ??P14, Loretta_Guarino_Reid 20:01:46 Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (1%), Gregg (24%), [Microsoft] (9%), Wendy (24%) 20:01:47 zakim, I am Michael_Cooper 20:01:48 zakim, ??P14 is Bengt_Farre 20:01:48 +Michael_Cooper 20:01:50 ok, Michael, I now associate you with Michael_Cooper 20:01:52 +Bengt_Farre; got it 20:01:57 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 20:01:57 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 20:02:05 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:02:05 On the phone I see Joe_Clark.a, John_Slatin, Luca_Mascaro, Yvette_Hoitink, Ben, Wendy, Dave_MacDonald, Gregg, Matt, [Microsoft], Becky_Gibson, Bengt_Farre, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, 20:02:09 ... Michael_Cooper 20:02:26 zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike_Barta 20:02:26 +Mike_Barta; got it 20:02:30 zakim, who's making noise? 20:02:31 zakim, who's making noise? 20:02:46 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (34%), Yvette_Hoitink (4%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (25%), Michael_Cooper (15%) 20:02:58 Yvette_Hoitink, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Dave_MacDonald (41%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (18%), Michael_Cooper (4%) 20:03:23 +Tim_Boland 20:03:23 I get a lot of choppy sounds 20:03:27 zakim, mute Loretta 20:03:27 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should now be muted 20:03:31 bengt: we all do 20:03:36 zakim, unmute Loretta 20:03:36 Loretta_Guarino_Reid should no longer be muted 20:04:11 +[IBM] 20:04:19 zakim, IBM is Andi 20:04:19 +Andi; got it 20:04:20 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 20:04:25 zakim, mute Mike 20:04:25 Mike_Barta should now be muted 20:04:31 zakim, mute Michael 20:04:31 Michael_Cooper should now be muted 20:04:35 zakim, mute Bengt 20:04:35 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 20:04:36 zakim, mute me 20:04:37 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:04:45 zakim, unmute Mike 20:04:45 Mike_Barta should no longer be muted 20:04:49 zakim, unmute Michael 20:04:49 Michael_Cooper should no longer be muted 20:04:50 zakim, unmute me 20:04:50 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 20:04:55 let me call in again somethihng is strange 20:05:00 -Bengt_Farre 20:05:22 +??P14 20:05:27 zakim, ??P14 is Bengt_Farre 20:05:27 +Bengt_Farre; got it 20:05:30 zakim, take up item 1 20:05:30 agendum 1. "Techniques Task Force report" taken up [from wendy] 20:05:32 better ? 20:05:38 zakim, mute bengt 20:05:38 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 20:05:42 zakim mute me 20:05:42 hmm. not bengt. 20:05:45 zakim, who's making noise? 20:05:56 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (20%), Loretta_Guarino_Reid (4%), Michael_Cooper (4%), Tim_Boland (14%) 20:05:57 Zakim, mute me 20:05:59 Luca_Mascaro should now be muted 20:07:04 mc: looking over impact of baseline. thought about how this impacts requirements. 20:07:20 zakim, mute me 20:07:20 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:07:44 mc: issues that came up: 1. guide doc vs general techs. one or 2 docs? 20:08:25 mc: still a need for general techniques. not clear on relationships between documents or how people will use them. 20:08:52 mc: 2. requirements issue - need reqs for how writing techs wrt baseline. need to add info to techs. how apply to diff baseline. 20:09:31 mc: next issue: wanted to finalize matrix of user agents. 20:09:55 mc: what UAs will we keep in mind? need a small list that is not overwhelming. 20:10:06 mc: returned to matrix of UAs from 1 yr ago. 20:10:28 mc: created list. longer than would like (wrt managability) 20:10:36 mc: reads list. (available from minutes) 20:10:39 Makoto has joined #wai-wcag 20:11:05 http://www.w3.org/2005/04/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item03 20:11:40 mc: list is windows-only. conern about accessibility features evolving on linux and mac 20:11:47 s/conern/concern 20:11:57 mc: returning to review of test files 20:12:20 zakim, unmute me 20:12:20 Luca_Mascaro should no longer be muted 20:13:03 tks 20:13:05 q+ 20:13:08 js: process reminder - to get into queue type "q+" in irc or 61# 20:13:11 zakim, who is making noise ? 20:13:26 bengt, listening for 14 seconds I could not identify any sounds 20:13:32 zakim, mute Luca 20:13:32 Luca_Mascaro should now be muted 20:13:32 zakim, mute luca 20:13:33 Luca_Mascaro was already muted, wendy 20:14:03 ack gregg 20:14:38 +??P21 20:15:03 gv: the need for general techniques to be separate from guide doc. thought that the model was to attempt to bring things together not take apart. 20:15:09 js: reminder, we'll be looking at a draft next week. 20:15:35 zakim, +??P21 is Makoto 20:15:35 sorry, Makoto, I do not recognize a party named '+??P21' 20:15:46 gv: thought baseline by tech not UA. what is the list of browsers? 20:16:35 mc: we have repair techniques, to address UA failings. we don't expect those to be in baseline, but we do have techniques to address. 20:16:51 joe - that list is being discussed in wednesday telecons until have proposal for thursday call 20:16:52 zakim, unmute me 20:16:52 Luca_Mascaro should no longer be muted 20:16:57 ack Luca 20:17:29 luca - we can't hear you. 20:17:36 i'm a problem sorry 20:17:39 luca, can you type your question in irc? 20:17:41 zakim, unmute me 20:17:41 Luca_Mascaro was not muted, LucaMascaro 20:17:45 zakim, mute me 20:17:45 Luca_Mascaro should now be muted 20:18:09 my question is about if is useful to test also with safari on Mac OS X? 20:18:31 q+ 20:18:37 q+ to talk about Safari 20:18:39 mc: we considered that, but don't know of accessibility features in safari or mac os so didn't include. 20:18:57 q+ to ask "Focus on screenreaders only?" 20:18:57 ack mc 20:18:58 mcmay, you wanted to talk about Safari 20:19:30 m3m: rumor is that apple will release os10.4 in april or may and should have accessibility hooks into SR and SR, etc. 20:19:35 q+ to talk about rendering engines 20:19:51 js: maybe get ppl to look at. 20:20:07 tb: thought we agreed to include disclaimer that if ppl wanted tool tested, they could submit a request. 20:20:23 mc: yes, but don't have resources to test everything. 20:20:45 js: we're getting into discussion of baseline analysis on techniques. 20:21:01 zakim, unmute me 20:21:01 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 20:21:04 q- 20:21:14 ack yvette 20:21:14 Yvette_Hoitink, you wanted to ask "Focus on screenreaders only?" 20:21:23 yh: Focus on screenreaders only? 20:21:45 mc: they are on the radar. if the list needs refining, perhaps an item for next week. 20:22:12 s/next week/next wednesday's telecon 20:22:26 zakim, close this item 20:22:26 agendum 1 closed 20:22:27 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:22:28 2. Agenda review [from wendy] 20:22:32 zakim, close item 2 20:22:32 agendum 2 closed 20:22:33 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:22:34 3. Parameters for choosing baselines described by the WCAG WG (introduce and form task force to investigate) [from wendy] 20:22:38 zakim, take up item 3 20:22:38 agendum 3. "Parameters for choosing baselines described by the WCAG WG (introduce and form task force to investigate)" taken up [from wendy] 20:22:57 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0010.html 20:23:25 zakim, mute me 20:23:25 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 20:23:30 yvette - not tuesday, wednesday. info on wcag wg home page under "meetings" 20:23:39 Tim has joined #wai-wcag 20:23:46 mc: goes through proposal. 3 baselines. 20:23:53 wendy - thanks, I thought I hears Michael say Tuesday so I thought it was a different meeting 20:24:26 not that i'm aware of. ;) 20:26:23 mc: the union of techniques required for both baselines is the set of techniques we recommend using today. 20:26:58 mc: caveat - current scripting techniques written w/assumption that scripts will degrade gracefully. do not have techs for scripts that are required. therefore, analysis not complete. 20:27:12 mc: will write some techs that would be in that category so can complete the analysis. 20:27:40 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 20:28:22 concerned about coverage of techniques re: Guidelines for particular 20:28:58 baseline (numbers) - have we covered all the Guidelines re: 20:29:08 js: reactions? 20:29:16 q+ tim 20:29:27 ack tim 20:30:11 tb: for a particular baseline, what coverage do we have for techniques? sufficient # of techniques to use to meet all guidelines? 20:31:07 mc: did not to that. if adopt baseline proposal, would be place to start. unofficially, we are likely missing techniques. 1st need to choose baselines we are going to write techniques for, then perform that analysis, and then fill in the gaps. 20:31:14 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2005/02/11-sc-techniques-mapping.html 20:31:27 Q+ 20:31:30 bc: this shows the mapping of techniques to SC. you'll see several SC that have no techniques. 20:32:00 js: if we can get SC and GL set, then more can shift attn to writing techniques. 20:32:12 ack gregg 20:32:34 -Luca_Mascaro 20:33:11 gv: may need to refine the baselines. but, it gives us a place to start and a way to sort techniques and determine what we have or not. 20:33:14 q+ 20:33:48 ack joe 20:34:07 tecks has joined #wai-wcag 20:34:34 jc: if we put good effort into filling holes and then put out a call, imagine they will be able to create techniques. these are the type of problems they love to solve. 20:35:03 "they" being standards oriented designers, "high minded people" 20:35:15 zakim, close this item 20:35:15 agendum 3 closed 20:35:16 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:35:17 4. Techniques analysis [from wendy] 20:35:25 the standards-compliant developers can probably come up with at least one technique for each guideline we're missing in HTML+CSS and *possibly* scripting. 20:35:31 Wendy, I am here, student I was to see medi-vac'd out of teh village. Just back from emergency dental stuff, will likely ONLY do IRC. Count me as here - albeit late. Doyle 20:35:33 zakim, close item 4 20:35:33 agendum 4 closed 20:35:33 scribe: ben 20:35:34 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:35:35 5. Conformance analysis / proposal [from wendy] 20:35:39 zakim, take up item 5 20:35:39 agendum 5. "Conformance analysis / proposal" taken up [from wendy] 20:36:30 Joe - Akiachak 20:36:35 wc: bc and I sent summary - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0021.html 20:37:21 wc: some issues related to 3rd party verifying claims - may need more details about UA and assumptions made by authors - depends somewhat on what bc, mc and bg come up with regarding techniques baselines 20:38:03 wc: would be interested to get more feedback on required technologies vs. technologies used 20:38:40 js: questions or clarifications? 20:38:49 Q+ 20:39:04 tb: wondering if conformance allows claims for resources that rely on multiple conformance claims? 20:39:14 wc: yes, examples we gave include mult. technologies 20:39:42 one exmaple relied on HTML, but used various image formats, another relied on HTML and script, but used others 20:40:13 +Luca_Mascaro 20:40:23 Zakim, i am LucaMascaro 20:40:23 ok, LucaMascaro, I now associate you with Luca_Mascaro 20:40:26 Zakim, mute me 20:40:26 Luca_Mascaro should now be muted 20:40:27 didn't create an objective measure to diff. which are required vs. used. basically, "relied upon" means an author isn't providing a graceful degradation 20:40:55 wc: relied upon means techs must be supported and turned on. 20:41:09 used means that technologies can be turned off or not supported, but content would still be usable 20:41:22 (you still get all the content, it is just presented differently) 20:42:07 wc: example 3 (web application for photo site) was that script and CSS was relied upon and would not work without support for these techs 20:42:08 q+ 20:42:20 Q+ perhaps use " xxxx technologies must be supported and turned on. xxxx are used but not required. 20:42:25 tb: usability testing needed? 20:43:28 ack gregg 20:43:46 gv: think this is interesting, one suggestion is that relied upon is hard to interpret 20:44:17 perhaps change it to say xxx technologies must be supported and turned on. and xxx technologies are used, but not required (might make it clearer) 20:44:38 is a very interesting way to point out exactly what we mean 20:45:59 jc: 2 things (btw, flikr works ok w/ out flash) - example 2 example (s5) is a pretty good one - any example we come up with that relies on CSS, there's really no such thing as turning it off (you're turning off author CSS and using default UA CSS unless we're talking about lynx) 20:46:47 wc: we can clarify that, but there are cases where the authors CSS isn't supported in conjunction with script, problems may come up 20:47:41 gv: I think joe's comment is particularly good because if you said CSS is not req'd and people said, "oh good, I can use lynx," then we're sending the wrong message 20:48:27 wc: can see clarification that adds author CSS 20:49:19 wc: have talked about 3 baselines dependent on HTML, CSS and Javascript, but over time, we may add other technology examples 20:49:33 q? 20:49:36 js: other comments and questions? 20:49:36 ack joe 20:49:37 q- 20:50:25 gv: what about audience assumptions in conf. claims? 20:50:42 wc: didn't focus on that yet 20:51:13 gv: would like to suggest that audience not be part of it because people often say that people with disabilities are not in their audience. 20:51:36 wc: that was something that came out of F2F - #1 assumption is that people with disabilities are in every audience 20:52:27 wc: think that as long as audience info is optional, audience information may be very useful for 3rd parties trying to verify validity of conformance claims, but need to give people some parameters for what audience assumptions can be made. 20:53:01 q+ 20:53:02 gv: audience is a red flag because people can make a number of problematic assumptions about their audience 20:53:06 ack John 20:53:28 q- 20:53:46 js: note that I'm getting ready to propose updates to 3.1 that will include some details about identifying audience, will try to address them, if not in guidelines, then in the guide doc. 20:54:10 js: other questions/responses? 20:54:26 wc: next steps? 20:54:51 js: since all 3 of these things (techs analysis, conformance and 4.2) might make sense to go through that first and come back to harvest action items 20:55:11 zakim, close this item 20:55:11 agendum 5 closed 20:55:12 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 20:55:13 6. Impact analysis for guideline 4.2 [from wendy] 20:55:20 zakim, take up item 6 20:55:20 agendum 6. "Impact analysis for guideline 4.2" taken up [from wendy] 20:55:42 lgr: in going through 4.2 as we looked at assumption of moving baseline out, we concluded that there was nothing left for 4.2 20:56:03 list discussion raised some questions about that 20:56:25 q? 20:56:39 summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0015.html 20:57:26 lgr: techniques work seems to be consistent with the recc. to clarify required technologies 20:57:36 js: conformance work does to 20:57:42 s/to/too 20:57:58 q+ 20:58:08 s/draming/dreaming 20:58:20 -??P21 20:58:40 js: what I pick up here is that there are some very specific proposals here, may not need to decide today 20:58:51 one is proposal to delete 4.2 from guidelines in its entirety 20:59:08 q+ 20:59:25 js: also jason's proposal 20:59:45 js: definitions for "baseline" and "technology" needed 20:59:49 ack gregg 21:00:43 gv: concern (wanted to have group help think this through) if reason we drop 4.2 was because it was being covered by UA and other guidelines, but purpose for 4.2 was about what happens when authors create user interfaces that are not part of user agent 21:00:45 q+ 21:01:11 gv: these elements would not be covered because they don't exist until they are rendered by the UA - 4.2 says if you do that, then you need to meet reqs. from UAAG 21:02:09 gv: if pieces of user interface come with content, it is authors responsibility to make sure that that UA software that they've created through their interface, it also needs to meet UAAG 21:02:22 q+ 21:02:26 ack Andi 21:03:08 q+ Andi 21:03:16 ack Loretta 21:03:44 lgr: one reason I have troulbe with this is that maybe I'm not familiar enough with techs that can do this - are we just talking about scripting? 21:03:49 gv: could be java, could be flash 21:04:03 lgr: question is whether this is fundamentally a scripting issue? 21:04:21 gv: if you sent something down in flash or java, you could create whole new user interfaces 21:04:48 gv: JavaScript? no. 21:05:11 lgr: trying to think about types of techs where it is possible to create a user interface - not sure if those are captured by the rest of our guidelines 21:05:17 ack joe 21:05:27 q? 21:05:29 ack david 21:05:35 q+ 21:06:42 dmd: 4.2 was looking through the lens of html. in 2.0, if something is a user agent, it would fall under UAAG. 21:06:45 scribe: wendy 21:06:52 dm: seems to me that in 4.2, we were looking at guidelines through the lens of HTML, seemed to be applying to HTML + plugins, etc. the thinking was (and we may want to correct it) that in 2.0, we're tech. agnostic and if something really is a UA, then it would fall under UAAG guidelines, if it's something that relates to content 21:06:55 Q+ 21:07:03 oops. 21:07:22 ack joe 21:07:57 jc: as for UI embedded into content, e.g., flickr organizer. flash app to upload, tag photos. 21:08:18 Tim has left #wai-wcag 21:08:26 action: joe look for links and create demo account re: UI embedded into content (stock tickers?) 21:08:52 jc: stock tickers. updated instantaneously. great example to work from. 21:09:11 jc: fidelity stock calculator. 21:09:24 jc: why not send them to UAAG? that makes sense to me. 21:09:30 -Tim_Boland 21:09:40 gv: that's what 4.2 said. "if you do x, implement relevant portions of UAAG" that is being removed. 21:10:14 q+ to say, "It seems that 4.2 in current draft is not only applicable to *custom* UI" 21:10:15 jc: the advantage of leaving them in is that UAAG and ATAG are less known. ppl have to make conscious decision to look them up. 21:10:34 ack andi 21:10:53 asw: re: jason's proposal, concern about #2. "is satisifed..." not sure if that is testable. 21:12:04 asw reads #2 from jason's message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0028.html 21:12:24 asw: how apply to html? there is no UAAG conforming browsers that support html. 21:12:35 js: that's the point of the 2nd clause. 21:12:42 asw: the things that don't conform to in uaag don't matter 21:12:44 q+ 21:12:44 q+ 21:13:05 zakim, unmute me 21:13:05 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:13:42 zakim, unmute me 21:13:42 Yvette_Hoitink was not muted, Yvette_Hoitink 21:13:46 action: john contact jason to clarify proposal and reword for better understanding by the group. 21:13:47 zakim, mute me 21:13:47 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:13:48 q- 21:14:24 asw: concern that if we say, "if you are creating a UA-like thing have to conform to UAAG" - then putting higher standard on ppl writing embedded UA than those writing UAs. 21:14:55 q- 21:15:05 asw: we're not requiring ppl who write UAs to conform to UAAG. 21:15:53 gv: higher standard - as a user could get a UA that doesn't meet UAAG but then also get an AT that can help get me content. howevr, have no way to get a tool to deal with content that springs UA on me when i access content. 21:17:08 q+ to say, "not limited to ua, also atag" 21:17:10 Flickr Organizr: 21:17:11 http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize 21:17:15 for the record. 21:17:18 q+ 21:17:35 ack loretta 21:17:38 ack g 21:17:46 Q+ 21:18:18 lgr: my understanding of the proposal is there are aspects of uaag that content author can not repair. e.g., if not accessible documentation provided for the UA, we can't ask the content author to provide that. 21:18:26 (in order for them to use that tech) 21:18:52 lgr: if the uaag requirement had to do with contet, then make sure you satisfy it. 21:19:16 lgr: uaag is good at requiring functional requirements, but not sure if it will be clear for which parts of uaag is a content author to compensate for. 21:19:39 gv: propose postpone discussion of jason's proposal until he's here. 21:20:10 ack mc 21:20:53 m3m: we have substantial support for what is there (uaag). can assume line of demarcation between ua and content. 21:21:26 m3m: when get into content that is also a ua, then in a grey area between app and browser, uaag at least defines what we expect of the browser. 21:21:51 m3m: if that is something that is failing, that's another way of asying, "until user agents" 21:22:04 js: clarification - adovcating leaving 4.2 (in some form) in? 21:22:22 m3m: don't have solid answer. responding to earlier comment. 21:22:31 ack wendy 21:22:31 wendy, you wanted to say, "not limited to ua, also atag" 21:23:17 q+ about Flickr 21:23:24 q- about 21:23:26