See also: IRC log
<David> its a trick by the universe to make us punctual
<Michael> scribe: ChrisRid
zakim scribe, chris
zakim scribe: chris
zakim scribe: ChrisRid
discussion of definitions
resolution: "positive test case"
- means that test file has accessibility error
... "negative test case" - means test file does NOT have error
<Michael> resolution: change 2.1 "techniques must be usable..." to "should"
resolution: Modify text for 2.1 - Paragraph "Source files..."
<scribe> ACTION: Wendy will write up something and send to list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
<wendy> action 1 = Wendy will propose a replacement for the paragraph that begins, "Source files must be structured in such a way that multiple views can be achieved."
resolution: accept proposal in
2.2 - Each technique must have a unique ID
... paragraph in 2.2 "techniques must be versionable..." will be removed because is redundant with W3C requirements
<ben> notes on I18N extensions to xmlspec: Notes on use of the xmlspec-i18n dtd
<ben> Styleguide for i18n specifications
<wendy> ACTION: wendy check with Ivan (head of offices) about translating xml - how likely? [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action02]
<wendy> action 2 = wendy check with Ivan (head of offices) about translating xml and about 2 points in 2.2 about localization.
discussion re 2.3 paragraph "Each technique must map to a Success Criteria"
<Michael> resolution: techniques should map to SC, guideline, or Principle - lowest granularity possible
<Michael> note on resolution: techniques that don't map to SC are optional, even if highly recommended
<Michael> clarification: because conformance is at level of SC. Also note not all optional techniques are in this category, i.e., some optional techniques /do/ map to SC.
resolution: change text in final
paragraph of 2.3 to "...intent of the Success Criteria,
Guideline or Principle."
... second paragraph in 2.4 should be modified to clear ambiguity on "optional and not recommended"
<wendy> resolution: last sentence in 2nd point in 2.4 needs rewriting for clarification.
<Michael> potential rewording of proposal in 2.4: Techniques that are optional and not recommended in a given baseline are documented because they may be considered sufficient in a different baseline..
resolution: revisit first point
in 2.4 after we discuss further requirements
... change 'must' to 'should' in 3.1 sentence "Where technologies work together (e.g., HTML and CSS), relevant joint techniques must..."
resolution: remove note in 3.1
that begins with "Note: There is not consensus..."
... change "must" to "should" in paragraph "Techniques must state to which versions...". Also rewrite paragraph to make it less academic.
... remove paragraph in 3.1 that begins with "For a given technology, it is not necessary..."
... remove note in 3.1 "There is serious debate about..."
<wendy> ACTION: wendy investigate in wcag 2.0 requirements if have a point that says "each SC must have at least one SC (could be a general tech) but that each SC does not need a SC for each tech (e.g., when look at the SC to tech mapping it is ok to have empty boxes as long as one is filled) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action03]
resolution: accept proposal in 3.1
<wendy> ACTION: wendy and michael divvy "general tech requirements" into "guide requirements" and "general tech requirements" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04]
resolution: in 4.2 bullet
"conditional statements..." should be removed.
... in 4.2 change "must" to "should" in paragraph "There must be at least two test files...". Revisit text to perhaps change "test files" to "test cases"
<wendy> chris? did you get the resolution for the appendix?
sorry missed it, can you put it in?
<wendy> resolution: add something to the beginning of the appendix that these were thoughts we had previously and that influenced the design of the dtd. however, due to lack of resource (and time or whatever) decided that we would not require different views for recommenation, but might provide them in the future.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.126 of Date: 2005/05/16 16:49:48 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: ChrisRid Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisRid Default Present: David_MacDonald, Ben, Christophe_Strobbe, Michael_Cooper, Chris_Ridpath, Wendy, Lisa_Seeman, Becky_Gibson Present: David_MacDonald Ben Christophe_Strobbe Michael_Cooper Chris_Ridpath Wendy Lisa_Seeman Becky_Gibson Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JulSep/0189.html Got date from IRC log name: 27 Jul 2005 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/27-wai-wcag-minutes.html People with action items: send something up wendy will write WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]