W3C

- DRAFT -

AGWG Teleconference

23 Nov 2021

Attendees

Present
ShawnT, Jennie, shadi, alastairc, Rachael, Fazio, Lauriat, JF, Jen_G, MelanieP, kirkwood, JakeAbma, jeanne, Léonie, (tink), mbgower, Wilco, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, .5, Raf, jeanne2, Léonie (tink), GN015
Regrets
Nicaise, Chuck, Alastair G, Rain
Chair
SV_MEETING_CHAIR
Scribe
alastairc, alastair-web, mbgower, Wilco

Contents


<Jennie> *No problem Rachael - helpful to plan ahead!

<Rachael> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

<Rachael> We need a scribe.

<alastairc> scribe: alastairc

new members and topics

<alastair-web> scribe: alastair-web

reminders

Rachael: No new members?

<Rachael_> group-ag-plan@w3.org

Rachael: If you are in a sub-group and are ready to bring your work back to the group, please email us
... just want to keep up with the schedule.
... second reminder - we have the all-day session on Dec 3rd

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/

the surveys are open, more weill be added.

<Rachael_> Calendar invitation is at https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/fdb72858-31c8-4507-b12b-c72a3fcafdaa

The calendar invitation is here ^

protocols group

<JF> Protocols: see here - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Protocols#Meeting_Minutes

Rachael: The protocols group is a sub-group, brain-storming potential protocols, and based on that list trying to define it.

<Rachael_> https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/bfc72cd9-fdfc-4847-826a-01afb9e3f5e7/20211105T090000

<Rachael_> IRC channel: #silver-protocols.

Rachael: reach out to the chairs if you have questions, but the zoom info / irc is here ^
... if you have the time, it's an active sub-group to join.

JF: Just to add, we could really use more people weighing in. It's a meaty topic, we'd appreciate more people on Fridays.

WCAG 3.0 Requirements https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG3_requirements/results

<alastairc> scribe:alastairc

Request to add a target increase in level of effort

Rachael: first topic is a request from issue 369, about the level of effort relative to WCAG 2.x
... 10 results, 2 agree, 6 disagree, 2 something else.

Melanie: The issue filed describes it. There is good industry consensus that we're looking at 2-4 hours / page. If we go beyond that we're setting it up for the argument that it's an undue burden.

<Fazio> too arbitrary

Wilco: It's a conversation we need to have, and earnestly. I don't know if it is setting a goal, or something else. There is a thing as 'too expensive'. We should know what the bar is before we cross it.

<Fazio> agree with jf

Rachael: (reads JF's survey comment)

<Fazio> plus experience levels

JF: Get what Wilco's saying, it's a reasonable goal to shoot for. There are different methods & tools, so we can't come out with a blanket target.

<Fazio> +1 JF

JF: I've heard that the general time needed is decreasing at scale. I agree with the goal, but it's really hard to measure.

<kirkwood> Strongly agree with John F comment.

Rachael: (reads Jeanne's comment)

Jeanne: When we originally presented the metrics for evaluating WCAG 3, the group working on the internal testing, the metrics came from the W3C symposium on accessibility metrics. One of the metrics is complexity, I think we are addressing it, but until we know how to do it we shouldn't add it as a requirement.

Rachael: (Reads Gundula's comment)

GN015: As I wrote, things like automation might change the times, it may not be what we expect.

Rachael: (Reads Rain's comment)

<Fazio> it also depends on attention given to accessibility during SDLC

<Fazio> Software Development Lifecycle

Rachael: (reads Jennifer's comment)

<Fazio> part of maturity modelling

<jeanne2> +1 to Jenny

Jennifer: When we write things in that a test should take a certain time, that might be used to evaluate tester performance in un-anticipated ways.

<Fazio> its an inherent goal of the premise for wcag 3

<Fazio> no need to state it

<Rachael_> topics: Risk of too much time being a barrier, is there a way to incorporate the concept somewhere that addresses the concern raised

<Fazio> defining cost is tricky also

Wilco: similar to conversation last week, this is more of a goal than a requirement. I think we should have this conversation, we might be on different wavelengths. Some people might be happy with 10x longer testing, others might think it should be less.

<Fazio> cost of labor? cost of tools? cost of both? labor costs differ by regions of the world

<Rachael_> revised topics: How do we think WCAG 3 should affect effort, Risk of too much time being a barrier, is there a way to incorporate the concept somewhere that addresses the concern raised?

Wilco: secondly, it's a bit of a straw-man argument about longer testing being better. It depends how we write the requirements, if we avoid longer things that might not make it less inclusive.

<Fazio> which is why backwards compatibly of wcag 3 I think is important

Wilco: thirdly, I was involved in a transition from WCAG 1 to 2, the org lost a lot of customers because the audits took longer, became more costly. It was mostly smaller orgs that couldn't afford it.

<kirkwood> I agree with incorporating the concept and specifically of measuring the “level of effort”. However, not sure if we can determine what that level is for all.

Wilco: if we don't take that into account, there will be a bottom rung of orgs that just don't do it.

Shadi: I'm wondering, under which conditions the level of effort would increase? I'm thinking there are (generally) two primarily categories. 1st is that more requirements are added, things we haven't included before. For that, the question is whether the additional effort is warranted because we're including more people.
... other reason effort might increase is that the requirements are written in a way that incur more effort due to being more manual, granular etc. Whereas using current/future tooling, clear & testable requirements might decrease the effort required.
... re-phrasing that to having easier to understand/test/implement requirements would address the core of the issue raised.

JF: Part of me feels that this conversation is pre-mature, setting it as a guide for our work is a good thing, but there are many variables going in.
... it's too early to reach that conclusion. We need to be mindful of it, there's a cost to testing, and we can't let that run out of control. That's important as we answer other questions around scoring/conformance.
... but to set it as a bar against WCAG 2.x doesn't seem reasonable.

<JF> connectivity issues can also impact time

Jennie: In reference to Wilco's comment, my comments were about hiring people with disabilities.

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to suggest we schedule a discussion about the time for audits and devote a meeting to it.

<Wilco> @Jennie, thank you. My response was more on the comment from Rain. But that is a good point.

Jeanne: I suggest that we schedule this discussion in detail at a future time, and present proposals on how we could do this. E.g. PeterK suggested a level that was based on automated. Rather than debate today, let's schedule it.

<JF> +1 to scheduling a future meeting topic

<Wilco> +1 to Rachael, it's about should we, not how.

<kirkwood> -1 to level of effort

Rachael: Current question is whether we include a requirement about this, before we get to how.

<Fazio> "This will be revisited at a later date"

Jeanne: Suggest we respond to the comment by scheduling a discussion about it. I think we agree it's a worthy goal, but we need proposals to work out whether we can do it.

Jen_G: From the perspective of someone who benefits from accessibility, people have been bringing up the real world issues.

<Fazio> defining costs is way beyond our capacity. too many variables

<Rachael_> ak jf

JF: From the previous comments on the FPWD, it's partly around the time that particular tests take, and how much subjectivity is included.

<Fazio> +1JF

<Fazio> complexity we can focus on cost is not realistic

Wilco: We got a lot of feedback on the 1st draft about the complexity, e.g. around grading etc. There's a concern outside that it might get too complicated/expensive. Smaller orgs don't test, larger orgs don't test as much.

<jeanne2> Jen_G: As someone who benefits from accessibility, it is realistic that if the cost of accessibility is too high, then it takes longer to get the site to being accessible.

<Rachael_> straw poll: Option 1 - Don't add to requirements document but add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion, Option 2 - Continue to explore addign this to the requirements in some form, Option 3 - do not add this to requirements in any form

<Fazio> 3

<Rachael_> straw poll: Option 1 - Don't add to requirements document but add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion, Option 2 - Continue to explore adding this goal to the requirements in some form, Option 3 - do not add this to goal in any form

<tink> 2.

Rachael: Adding to the schedule would mean having a schedule block for that conversation, after conformance.

<Rachael_> straw poll: Option 1 - Don't add to requirements document but commit to talking about it (add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion), Option 2 - Continue to explore adding this goal to the requirements in some form, Option 3 - do not add this to goal in any form

<Fazio> 3 this is unrealistic

<JF> Option 1, with a fallback to Option 3

<Jennie> option 1

2, could live with any.

<ShawnT> 1

<jeanne2> 1 ok with 3

<Lauriat> 1

<Jon_avila> 1

<tink> 2.

<Wilco> 2

<Rachael_> 1

<laura> 1

<MelanieP> 2

<JakeAbma> 2

<mbgower> 1

<AWK> 1

<Raf> 1 or 3

<kirkwood> 1

Rachael: Looks like people leaning towards option 1.

<Fazio> this is an exercise in futility

<Fazio> no

Rachael: can people live with having the conversation later?

<AWK> +AWK

Fazio: One of the purposes of WCAG 3 was to make things easier. If you start a business you create a document of goods-sold, similarly, here we need to keep things simple, but there's no way of quantifying it.
... if we focus on making things easier/simpler, then that achieves it without wasting time.

Wilco: I see it getting more complex.

<MelanieP> +1 to Wilco

Wilco: I think we need a conversation about how far we want it to go?
... if it is likely to get twice as expensive we can work it out.

<Fazio> it's not quantifiable

mbgower: The problem with saying it's easier or harder, how do we say that without quantifying it?

<Fazio> that'sq+

<Zakim> Lauriat, you wanted to point out our need to work with stakeholders to understand this as we work through how conformance & testing can work

Shawn: building on previous points, this is way we need to work with stakeholders to evaluate things. As we hammer things out, our stakeholders will be key in figuring that out. We need to actively reach out to stakeholders about these things.

<Wilco> +1

<Fazio> itll be 1 sided small businesses won't have capacity to cost it out

<Fazio> this is like a six sigma project

Shawn: we might not have an exact metric, but we need something more concrete to bring to them.

<Fazio> which is huge complicated and costly

<Jennie> +1 to Shawn - that could help us know what to add to the information provided to help with adoption.

JF: It's too early, we're all mindful about cost, but to try and peg a cost to that now is unrealistic.

<tink> +1 to JF

<laura> +1 to JF. it is premature.

<Fazio> this is what prevented coga

<kirkwood> +1 to JF

Fazio: It's really impossible for us to quantify it, in dollar amounts isn't possible. The better way is to simplify the guidelines and the process. Agree with Wilco, WCAG 3 so far isn't meeting the goal of making things easier. once we get back to that goal it will drive down costs.

<Fazio> +alastair. Let's focus on simplifying

<Fazio> +1 Alastair

<Lauriat> +1 to Alastair

<Fazio> complexity and cost was the biggest barrier to COGA SC's

AC: Be prepared for it to be more complex before it gets simpler. Also, good to discuss at a later stage, probably on a guideline by guideline basis.

<Fazio> That's what I said

tink: don't think we can have the conversation yet. From an assessments and audit point of view, if more people can do more, testing orgs might not have to do less testing.
... we're going to make somethings better, somethings worse, need to consider the combined picture.

<Lauriat> +1 on the more holistic approach

MelanieP: To david's point about costing things in terms of time (not cost), my job is translating WCAG into testing methods for deque. Wilco's focus at automating testing. The concept of benchmarking what we have now vs 3.0 doesn't seem difficult to do.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that automated and manual end-of-production testing isn't the only way to validate accessible content

MelanieP: someone was saying that you can develop something itterate, and that's what benchmarking can help with.

<Fazio> This is the part of Lean Transformation, and Six Sigma, which is complicated. Determining the factors of cost, time, space, materials, labor, travel distance, etc. etc.

mbgower: In the same way that 2.0 was dev focused, I think we have a bias to thinking about it as testing. There are other ways to validate that. You can also validate processes, which is really important in WCAG 3.0 where they are more design actions.

<JF> @Melanie, we don't have anything in WCAG 3 to benchmark today

mbgower: verifying that something is considered, is a way of confirming that effort is put in place. If you can only test 10% of a requirement, then there are other ways of validating that.

JF: That process Michael described is how I'm thinking about protocols. We don't have anything in WCAG 3 that we can benchmark yet.
... let's revisit in 6 months, see what we have to benchmark then. It's all part of the process.

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: Don't add to requirements document but schedule a conversation about the holistic cost of WCAG 3 after we make more progress (add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion)

<mbgower> +1

<JF> +1

<Wilco> +1

<laura> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Fazio> 0

<ShawnT> +1

<Jennie> +1

<Lauriat> +1

<jeanne2> +1

<JakeAbma> +1

+1

<tink> +1

<Jon_avila> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Rachael_> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

RESOLUTION: Don't add to requirements document but schedule a conversation about the holistic cost of WCAG 3 after we make more progress (add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion)

<Raf> +1

ACT New Rules https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/act_nov_10/results

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

Common Input Aspects note

<Rachael_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/520/files

<Rachael_> • https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/pull/521/files

We have 4 who approved, 1 with some adjustments

Rachael: I had requested a change in language, to define in positive instead of the negative

Wilco: I suggested some alternative wording

<MelanieP> Did we miss one of the Silver questions? About scope?

<Rachael_> The test cases of ACT Rules interested in the CSS styling must be viewed with the CSS included by the author, and the [user agent default style sheet](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-ua). [User style sheets](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade/#cascade-origin-user) and other custom styles should be avoided to ensure test cases have the expected outcome.

Rachael: Did anyone have concerns on revised wording or other comments?

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: Accept note as ammended

<Wilco> +1

<laura> +1

<Rachael_> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<jeanne2> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<MelanieP> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept note as ammended

<JF> +1

Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

Melanie: We missed a WCAG 3.0 question

Rachael: We ran out of time. We time boxed the 3.0 discussion
... We had 4 who approved.
... Do any of the approvers have comments?

Wilco: I wanted to mention that I updated the page. There was a bug that caused some of the links not to render. That addresses some of the issues.

Rachael: John Foliot you approved with adjustments [reads suggestions]

<Wilco> https://wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/element-lang-valid-de46e4/#valid-language-tag

JF: I believe I'm looking at the right thing. You're referencing RFR 5646. What we want is ISO 639-1

Wilco: That ISO standard is outdated. The language standard is maintained elsewhere. It's confusing because HTML also has tags, but this is the terminology used in internationalization. They are called tags.

<Jon_avila> I agree with Wilco - IANA registry https://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry/language-subtag-registry

JF: I'm concerned that we're inferring when we should be very explicit. Maybe an example would be useful

Rachael: Oliver do you want to speak to your question?

Wilco: I don't think Oliver is on the call. I think this is about Pass Example 4. I wrote a response. I think he needs to agree or not.

<Wilco> Passed example 4: https://wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/element-lang-valid-de46e4/#passed-example-4

Rachael reads out Gundula's response.

Rachael: Do you want to speak to that?

Gundula: What exactly is the language code. Should it check that it's syntactically correct?
... Similar to Oliver, I would rather to stick to keeping the test very specific.

Rachael reads out some of Wilco's responses in survey

Rachael: Did I miss anyone?
... I see two topics: the language code, and Pass Example 4.

<Rachael_> Topics: lang codes, pass example 4, 2 letter codes are not sufficient

Rachael: And I guess 2-letter codes being insufficient

JF: I need to process this document a little bit more, but looking at this document I'm concerned about 'accessibility supported' here

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about RFC 5646 Private Use Subtags - those are now acceptable?

Wilco: Yes, I'm saying those are fine. We tested accessibility support. Anything that starts with "en-" works fine.

<Jon_avila> regional subtag

Wilco: Some technologies check for secondary tags. They don't affect accessibility at all. The only case was some version of Chinese where that might matter.
... It's just the first 2 or 3 characters. If you end the tag or follow it by a dash, it passes,

JF: Can you provide some research to support that?

Wilco: I can dig for that.
... Providing accessibility supported data is way too big a project. If we can get some of our test cases incorporated in our testing suites, it's something we'd like to pursue.

JF: I just got more data on the call today. I know Wilco. I have less concern than I did yesterday.

<Wilco> https://wai-wcag-act-rules.netlify.app/standards-guidelines/act/rules/element-lang-valid-de46e4/#passed-example-4

Wilco: I hope Gundula can speak to the remaining itemn

<alastairc> Remember this is informative material, we can publish now and raise issues for change at any time.

Gundula: If a page is constructed dynamically with database content or modified, in some instances of real life systems, it may result in a fail where the screen reader can't get a language.

Wilco: If I can summarize, it sounds like you want things that can, in other scenarios, lead to accessibility issues, to always fail. Is that the case?

Alastair: There is value at this level having demonstrations that are not ideal but passing, even if they are potentially kinda dangerous

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about canonical references

Alastair: It's a good thing to have demonstrations of the edges. Even if it's not something we recommend at good practice, I think it's good to show.

<JF> 4.5. Canonicalization of Language Tags Since a particular language tag can be used by many processes, language tags SHOULD always be created or generated in canonical form.

JF: I'm wondering if there is any value in specifying it has to be one of the cannonical language tags.

s/cannoncial/canonical

Jon: I'm trying to understand the assertion on why a language tag could be inperfect but it could be accessible.

Wilco: We try really hard to avoid false positives.
... Lots of tools are very finicky about false positives. It would be a significant departure to change that.
... I do very much see your point. If you could just say "The lang tag is invalid, therefore it's a failure"

<Jon_avila> Who is "we" that Wilco is referring to?

<alastairc> ACt

<Rachael_> ACT taskforce I am guessing

Wilco: To JF, the valid language tag says it needs to be a tag that exists in the registry.

Jon: What you're saying is as long as it's in that list, it's okay, even if the combined language tags are invalid.

Wilco: You're right. The rule doesn't say it passes. It says further testing is needed. We haven't found a case of secondary subtags breaking accessiblity. That's why the rule doesn't test for them.

Rachael: I will reiterate that this is informative material. We can revise it much more easily than our normative documents.

Jon: Is there no defined combination of primary and secondary tags that forms an authority on what's acceptable?

<JF> @Wilco - interesting that at the linked registry, there is no entry for EN -US

Wilco: I don't think so, but I don't know.

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: approve publishing Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

+1

<Wilco> +1

<JF> +.5

<GN015> -1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<Jon_avila> +0

<Jaunita_George> +0

<ShawnT> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<MelanieP> +1

<Raf> +1

Gundula: I feel the uncertainty is there and should be resolved before publishing

<Rachael_> We need another scribe

Wilco: We have sometimes put in notes for things that are less supported. If it's not an accessibility problem, I don't care.

<Ryladog> I cannot

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Gundula: From the discussion I do not understand whether a language code that does not exist would pass or fail.

<Wilco> A language tag is valid if its primary language subtag exists in the language subtag registry with a Type field whose field-body value is language.

Wilco: "registry" is linked.
... We had broken links earlier. I apologize.
... We are renaming this rule. If that helps understandability, and we could delay until that is in.

Jon: If you had a valid primary but an invalid regional, does that pass or fail?

Wilco: We pass it. We have found no examples.

Jon: So even if it's not in the registry, if it is FOO for the regional, it would pass.

Wilco: en-usgb is the one that is not an existing one

RESOLUTION: approve publishing Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

Rachael: Based on conversation I believe we have resolution. Does anyone object?

<Wilco> scribe: Wilco

<GN015> Yes, I'm fine with clarification and the palnned change to clarify this further.

RESOLUTION: approve publishing Element with lang attribute has valid language tag

WCAG 2.2 Target size https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-target-size-min/results

Rachael: Going onto WCAG 2.2, we'll come back to ACT next week

<Rachael_> Further Examples Required #1872

Further Examples Required #1872

<Rachael_> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2024/files

Alastair: We had an issue from Ben asking about things that contain multiple targets.

<Rachael_> Response: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1872#issuecomment-911400533

Alastair: Targets on top of other targets. Detlev created a PR for that

Rachael: 9 people agreed, 2 agreed with adjustment

Mike: Might make more sense under benefits

Wilco: No additions to my comment

Alastair: Mike's suggestion, we could move that, but would rather we focus on the change.
... For Wilco's, so removing the words "fully or partially".

Wilco: Would do it for me.

Alastair: Made that change.

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR and response for 1872 as ammended

Rachael: Are we going to create a separate issue for Mike's suggestion?

<mbgower> yep

Alastair: We can make an editorial change on Friday.

+1

<ShawnT> +1

<GN015> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Rachael_> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR and response for 1872 as ammended

Align Target Size (min) with Target Size (enh) #1721

<Rachael_> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2082

Alastair: Basically, aligning the new SC with the old one.
... Not sure what Oliver means

GN: I think he was answering a different question

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR for #1721

+1

<alastairc> +1

<Rachael_> +1

<Ryladog> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<ShawnT> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR for #1721

Is "24 by 24 CSS pixels” reasonable? #1831

<Rachael_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1831#issuecomment-926700698

Alastair: It's been a common question. It's worth we all be aligned on the result

Rachael: 7 agreed, 2 agreed with adjustments, 2 something else
... [[reading through the comments]]

Alastair: I think we could add David's comment
... I've updated to use Gregg's suggestion.

Mike: The issue opener accepted the response. Why can't we just close it? We can increase the speed.

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: accept response to 1831 as amended

Alastair: I can ping David with the addition, but keep things consise.

+1

<ShawnT> +1

<michael> +1

<Rachael_> +1

<alastairc> +1

<GN015> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

RESOLUTION: accept response to 1831 as amended

Minimum Component Size #1870

<Rachael_> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1870#issuecomment-907356155

Rachael: Ben opened the issue. David wrote a response.

Alastair: This is very similar to what we've discussed. It's a common theme. We can cross-reference.
... I was thinking we cross-reference at the bottom.

<michael> Nope

Rachael: If we take Gregg's suggestion and remove the last sentence I think it also addresses Detlev's comment
... We need another issue on how spacing affects this. I'm not sure this is in scope for the response.

Alastair: I'll ping Abi to suggest a separate issue. There are some changes we can make, but goes beyond what we're responding to.
... I've removed the last sentence and added a cross-reference

<michael> +1

<Rachael_> draft RESOLUTION: Accept response to #1870 as ammended, and follow up on spacing issues raised by Abi

<ShawnT> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Rachael_> +1

+1

<Ryladog> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept response to #1870 as ammended, and follow up on spacing issues raised by Abi

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Don't add to requirements document but schedule a conversation about the holistic cost of WCAG 3 after we make more progress (add to WCAG 3 schedule after conformance decisions for future discussion)
  2. Accept note as ammended
  3. approve publishing Element with lang attribute has valid language tag
  4. approve publishing Element with lang attribute has valid language tag
  5. Accept PR and response for 1872 as ammended
  6. Accept PR for #1721
  7. accept response to 1831 as amended
  8. Accept response to #1870 as ammended, and follow up on spacing issues raised by Abi
[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.200 (CVS log)
$Date: 2021/11/23 18:00:08 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision VERSION of 2020-12-31
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/langauge/language/
FAILED: s/cannoncial/canonical/
Succeeded: s/Abby/Abi/
Default Present: ShawnT, Jennie, shadi, alastairc, Rachael, Fazio, Lauriat, JF, Jen_G, MelanieP, kirkwood, JakeAbma, jeanne, Léonie, (tink), mbgower, Wilco, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, .5, Raf
Present: ShawnT, Jennie, shadi, alastairc, Rachael, Fazio, Lauriat, JF, Jen_G, MelanieP, kirkwood, JakeAbma, jeanne, Léonie, (tink), mbgower, Wilco, Laura_Carlson, jon_avila, AWK, Katie_Haritos-Shea, .5, Raf, jeanne2, Léonie (tink), GN015
Regrets: Nicaise, Chuck, Alastair G, Rain
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Found Scribe: alastair-web
Inferring ScribeNick: alastair-web
Found Scribe: alastairc
Inferring ScribeNick: alastairc
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: Wilco
Inferring ScribeNick: Wilco
Scribes: alastairc, alastair-web, mbgower, Wilco
ScribeNicks: alastairc, alastair-web, mbgower, Wilco

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth


WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]