See also: IRC log
<wendy> Becky? can you scribe the first hour today?
<wendy> scribe: wendy
discussed scripts, prioritizing which topics to cover first/before last call
also, how to test
some proposals coming
reviewed some test cases
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/12/wttf.html
<wendy> addition: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JulSep/0367.html
Resolution: adopt TTF Work statment
with amendment posted by Wendy today (Aug 10)
proposal was to map WCAG 1.0 checkpoing 12.1 to WCAG 2.0 2.4 L1 SC1 and 2.4 L2 SC 4
there were issues with this at prev. meeting and small group went off to discuss
suggest new issue: frame title should either be listed as an example of navigation element or programmatically identified needs to mean and identification
of type
resolution: map WCAG 1.0 checkpoing 12.1 to GL 2.4 L1 SC1 and 2.4 L2 SC4
Resolution: Map WCAG 1.0 CP 4.2 to WCAG 2.0 GL 3.1 L3 SC3
Resolution: accepted above mapping
<wendy> fyi: mapping results at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/p3mapping/results
Resolution: Map WCAG 1.0 9.4 to WCAG 2.0 GL 2.4 L3 SC1
suggest deprecating or marking as not required or provide as advisory
jc: this is valid HTML so we should be careful about deprecating
gv: mappings must be to an entity or advisory item in guidedoc
<wendy> fyi: use of "deprecated" resolution in last week's minutes - http://www.w3.org/2005/08/04-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02
resolution: map WCAG 1.0 CP 9.5 to advisory item in GuideDoc and note that it is no longer required
<Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "bridge ala recent bug"
<wendy> fyi: andy budd's technique described in - http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1542
<wendy> currently maps to html "fallback" technique - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/#fallback-techniques
<Michael> scribe: Michael
<Becky> Resolution: map WCAG 1.0 CP 10.5 should map to advisory item in Guide doc - with note that no longer needed for user agents but may be useful for cognitive disabilites
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 11.3 does not map to any WCAG 2.0 SC though certain aspects may map to certain SC or advisory items
resolution: WCAG 2.0 CP 13.5 is not required in WCAG 2.0 by any SC. It is a possible strategy to address 2.4 L2 SC 1
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 13.6 maps to WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4 L2 SC 2. Note in WCAG 2.0 it only relates to groups that are repeated on multiple delivery units.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 13.7 does not directly map to any WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion and is not required. Some aspects relate to 2.4 L2 SC 1 and 2.5 L3 SC 2 as well as advisory items in the guide doc.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 13.8 is not required by any Success Criterion in WCAG 2.0. May be useful to map to advisory items in the guide doc.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 13.9 is not in WCAG 2.0 but does relate to Success Criterion 2.4 L3 SC 2 and would appear in advisory items in the guide doc.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 CP 13.10 is not required by any Success Criterion in WCAG 2.0. ASCII art is considered non-text content and would map to an advisory item in the guide doc.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.2 is not required by any WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion. It is a strategy that can be used to address WCAG 2.0 SC 3.1 L3 SC 5.
resolution: Aspects of WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 14.3 are required by WCAG 2.0 Guideline 3.2 L2 SC1, 3.2 L2 SC 4, and 3.2 L3 SC 1. There is no Success Criterion in WCAG 2.0 that is as broad as WCAG 1.0 CP 14.3, so aspects of it do not relate.
resolution: Our mapping document should indicate when a WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint is required by WCAG 2.0 and also if a WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint is sufficient to satisfy a WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion. We note if an item appears in advisory information if it is not required.
resolution: WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 1.5 is not required by any Success Criterion on WCAG 2.0. It might appear as a repair technique in conjunction with an advisory item in the guide doc. Note: this is no longer required because of advances in user agents.