SH: Review starting with Section 3
Peter: Section 3 has changed, we should skip, return to it later
SH: Section 4.1 is okay
SH: copy right sign on trade mark names
SH: section 4.2 and 4.3 are reasonable
SAZ: roardmap may be is not appropriate here, it is usually broader than we have! SAZ will come back again on this point
<yeliz> It might be better to use another term, if people agree
<mhakkinen> +1 agenda
<Vivienne> I prefer Agenda also
Christos: suggests Agenda instead of roadmap
<peter> (forget that plus one :)
SAZ: it is more a refelction. Agenda is similar to roadmap
YY: DIscussion section
SH: does not like discussion
<yeliz> I would be OK with that
peter: Future directions
<yeliz> as well
<peter> +1 future directions
SH: change the current future directions to something else
YY: maybe we do not need the current section title "future directions"
<yeliz> +1 I agree
<markel> sounds good
Vivian: Unified web paragraph: changes to ubiquitous ...
Vivian: second sentence ... there are many ..
<yeliz> Good idea
Markel: people with disability instead of disabled people
Vivian: There are discussions about this issue.
SAZ: current writing style "people with disabilities". SAZ will double check with Shawn
Vivia: can platforms become smarter?
<peter> sure +1
<peter> (makes it a bit clearer)
<mhakkinen> +1 strong (not bold)
Christos: bold the starting of the paragaphs in this section
<yeliz> Thanks, Markel, that's because different people worked on different sections:)
<markel> especially "Desktop" and "Mobile"
Markel: Inconsistency in the use of mobile web vs. Web, World Wide Web
SH: Section " Future Appoaches" word behind!
<yeliz> I will try
SH: Section 6 "Conclusions"
... Any additional references?
Markku: there many to add Markku will send ...
<peter> I'll add an issue to add that
SH: Discussion about the appendencies!
<markel> I'm fine with the appendix
SAZ: due to length we could have them separately
<markel> I would leave them there
SH: keeping them in there make the a holostic reading possible
<yeliz> better to keep them
<Justin> keep therm in
<peter> could we have both? linkable would also be nice?
<yeliz> +1 keep them
<peter> true good point
SH: linakble with anker!
<mhakkinen> +1 keep
<christos> +1 keep them
<yeliz> Simon, updated version is here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3040203/RDWG%20Mobile%20Note.html
SAZ: will check with the W3C copy right
<peter> (thanks Yeliz!)
<peter> (shadi would you like a bitbucket issue on the copy right bit?)
<peter> Yup - it's good
<yeliz> We checked that
SH: go to section 3
<yeliz> it would be good to add reference to RIAM project
<yeliz> under paper 3
<sharper> syncing ->synchronising
<sharper> them often -> them, often (?)
<sharper> with neither very -> both neither very
<yeliz> We need to add references to this section
<sharper> need to make sure we enunciate AT and API at the start
<shadi> some character coding issues on my setting
<shadi> eg "browser combinations‚€™ are by using"
<markel> I think the character encoding problem happens because the file is not hosted on a web server
<annika> clarify, is HTML(5) the same as HTML5?
<sharper> probably expand the RIAM acronym
<peter> annika - hmm right, HTML5 was renamed to HTML but people know the spec as HTML5. Do we think HTML5 or HTML or HTML(5)?
Yehya: or make RIAM a clikable link
<peter> Yup - adding now
<shadi> keep "HTML5" http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
<peter> righto :)
Yehya: UAAG2 should as well become clickable link
<shadi> yeliz, please link to "intro pages" like http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag
<yeliz> OK, I think it would be good if Peter can create an issue about this so that we check all of them
SH: Section 3 seems to be okay!
<peter> yup - will add an issues (globally throughout doc)
Justin: adding the workshop name and date
SAZ: adding the affilliation of the authors
<sharper> E. Woodward and B. Cragun. Accessible security for mobile. In Y. Y. Simon Harper, Peter Thiessen, editor, W3C WAI RDWG Symposium on Mobile Web Accessibility, page article 1, 2012.
<shadi> Paper 1: E. Woodward and B. Cragun. Accessible security for mobile.
<peter> I've always liked the scalability of bullet points
SAZ: I would not hyperlink the whole thing
<christos> +1 for bullet points
<shadi> Paper 1: _Accessible security for mobile_ (E. Woodward and B. Cragun.)
<peter> scalability -> scannability :)
<peter> sorry … too much coffee etc.
<Justin> not enough coffee
<shadi> Paper 1: _Accessible security for mobile_ (E. Woodward and B. Cragun 2012)
SAZ: making them as references e.g. 
<peter> +1 what SH just said
<Justin> As a academic drone, I too like references :)
SH: or as a cademic references (Author 2012)
<sharper> Paper 1: _Accessible security for mobile_ (E. Woodward and B. Cragun 2012)
<yeliz> What is the alternative, ?
<peter> +1 (willing to let bullet points go)
<peter> noted - adding issue
<peter> *will post remaining issues in irc log momentarily