See also: IRC log
<David> scribe: David
We looked at the diagram, still not under consensus, send back for review.
some discussion about the tone. do we need to say consensus, braod based... shawn responds that there were change logs recommendations included those things.
overall most say it is in a good direction
Say somethng about them being stable and will be around for a while
consent to remove content in the minutes "(To learn how these WAI guidelines fit in with Web development, see Essential Components of Web Accessibility, particularly the Guidelines for Different Components section.) "
W3C Notes - play around with them to tighten up... say what notes not...
kill "which are called WAI Resources]"
need to make sure that that people feel welcome to submit only one comment...
say "a working group" rather than "the working group"
last call says that we formally have to respond to all comments... but other stages don't mention responses ..perhaps we should clarify what the resonse obligations are or ar not at other levels.
gather implimentations experiences to jargonny...
no other comments, see also notes directly in the documents.
topics: transition WCAG 1-2
basically it is good
<shawn> *rough* initial ideas: http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/Drafts/transition1to2/transition1to2
I have to Go... thanks folks... need a new scribe...
<ben> scribe: ben
BC: Is intro. information about why a transition might be appropriate / what the advantages and disadvantages are needed?
<shawn> ACTION: Henny, CHANGELOG: earlier in doc: information about why a transition might be appropriate / what the advantages and disadvantages are [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/08/14-eow2-irc]
questions to ask in review: 1) are there things I no longer need to do? 2.) are there new requirements? 3.) are there assumptions I've had that should change?
scribe: what is my current WCAG 1.0 conformance level?