See also: IRC log
https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/labels/needs%20discussion
https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues
CV: reviewed all proposed resolutions
SM: reviewed all proposed resolutions until Issue #58
RESOLUTION: issues 1 through 58, except those marked "needs discussion", are now resolved according to their respective proposed resolutions
https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/labels/needs%20discussion
CV: concerned that by calling styling and scriptiing "auxiliary", they would be seen as less important
SAZ: could list them as sub-bullets to "markup
formats" and introduce them as part of the markup
... this way they would not be at the same level but also well-positioned and
introduced
CV: could work
https://github.com/w3c/w3c-waet/issues/51
SM: "resource formats" rather than "content types"
CV: like it
SAZ: beware of the word "documents" when refering to HTML
SM: concerned about being absolut that CSS
evaluation on its own makes no sense
... there are some situations where it could make sense
CV: maybe use the word "in general"
SM: yes
RESOLUTION: issues 1, 10, and 51 are resolved according to this discussion
https://w3c.github.io/w3c-waet/WAET.html#manual
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAET/#manual
"There are some evaluation tools that support accessibility experts by performing semiautomatic or manual tests"
"why there might be value in each"
SAZ: rephrase "accroding to EARL..." to something
like "tools carry out testing in different modes"
... to make testing modes the main point, rather than the EARL definition
Evaluation tools carry out testing in different modes. For example, one evaluation tool could <manual example, while another may <semi-auto example>
RESOLUTION: issue 54 is resolved accoring to the updated proposed resolution and this discussion