19:48:21 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag
19:48:28 <wendy> RRSAgent, make log world-visible
19:48:31 <Yvette> Hi Bent and Roberto (sorry, was reading my mail)
19:49:08 <Yvette> s/Bent/Bengt
19:55:12 <rellero> rellero has joined #wai-wcag
19:55:21 <rellero> Hi
19:55:42 <bengt> hi
19:56:25 <Yvette> Hi Roberto
19:57:09 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has joined #wai-wcag
19:57:16 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started
19:57:23 <Zakim> +Katie_Haritos-Shea
19:57:27 <rcastaldo> HI everybody
19:57:30 <rellero> Ciao
19:57:47 <Yvette> Hi Roberto
19:57:57 <rcastaldo> Ciao Rob
19:58:00 <rcastaldo> Ciao Yvette
19:58:37 <Zakim> +??P1
19:58:44 <Zakim> +Sailesh_Panchang
19:59:03 <rscano> hi
19:59:23 <Zakim> +Yvette_Hoitink
19:59:36 <Zakim> -??P1
20:00:05 <Yvette> zakim, mute me
20:00:05 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:00:13 <Zakim> +??P1
20:00:29 <Zakim> +??P4
20:00:31 <Zakim> +Avi
20:00:32 <bengt> zakim, ??P1 is Bengt_Farre
20:00:32 <Zakim> +Bengt_Farre; got it
20:00:42 <bengt> zakim, I am Bengt_Farre
20:00:42 <Zakim> ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre
20:01:10 <Zakim> +??P6
20:01:14 <rellero> zakim, ??P6 is Roberto_Ellero
20:01:14 <Zakim> +Roberto_Ellero; got it
20:01:15 <Zakim> +Matt
20:01:25 <rellero> zakim, I am Roberto_Ellero
20:01:25 <Zakim> ok, rellero, I now associate you with Roberto_Ellero
20:01:28 <Zakim> +John_Slatin
20:01:31 <Zakim> +Wendy
20:01:32 <rellero> zakim, mute me
20:01:32 <Zakim> Roberto_Ellero should now be muted
20:01:44 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:01:44 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Bengt_Farre, ??P4, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy
20:01:47 <rcastaldo> 01zakim, ??P4 is Roberto_Castaldo
20:01:51 <bengt> zakim, mute me
20:01:51 <Zakim> Bengt_Farre should now be muted
20:01:56 <Zakim> +Loretta_Guarino_Reid
20:02:04 <MattSEA> MattSEA has joined #wai-wcag
20:02:34 <rcastaldo> 01zakim, I am Roberto_Castaldo
20:02:45 <Zakim> +JasonWhite
20:02:48 <nabe> nabe has joined #wai-wcag
20:03:22 <Zakim> +[IBM]
20:03:36 <wendy> zakim, [IBM] is Andi
20:03:36 <Zakim> +Andi; got it
20:03:43 <Zakim> +??P10
20:03:43 <bcaldwell> bcaldwell has joined #wai-wcag
20:04:33 <Zakim> +??P11
20:04:42 <wendy> zakim, ??P11 is Ben-and-Gregg
20:04:42 <Zakim> +Ben-and-Gregg; got it
20:04:45 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:04:45 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink (muted), Bengt_Farre (muted), ??P4, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
20:04:47 <Yvette> zakim, unmute me
20:04:48 <Zakim> ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, ??P10, Ben-and-Gregg
20:04:49 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:05:04 <Zakim> +Dave_MacDonald
20:05:07 <wendy> zakim, ??P4 is Roberto_Castaldo
20:05:07 <Zakim> +Roberto_Castaldo; got it
20:05:20 <wendy> takayuki - are you on the phone? i'm wondering if you are ??P10.
20:05:37 <Zakim> +??P13
20:05:54 <wendy> zakim, ??P10 is Takayuki_Watanabe
20:05:54 <Zakim> +Takayuki_Watanabe; got it
20:05:56 <sh1mmer> Zakim, ??P13 is Tom
20:05:56 <Zakim> +Tom; got it
20:06:01 <sh1mmer> Zakim, I am Tom
20:06:01 <Zakim> ok, sh1mmer, I now associate you with Tom
20:06:05 <sh1mmer> Zakim, mute me
20:06:05 <Zakim> Tom should now be muted
20:06:07 <sh1mmer> that was me
20:06:10 <sh1mmer> i was getting to muting
20:06:11 <sh1mmer> ;)
20:06:13 <wendy> :)
20:06:29 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:06:29 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
20:06:32 <Zakim> ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, Takayuki_Watanabe, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Tom (muted)
20:06:51 <GVAN> GVAN has joined #wai-wcag
20:06:55 <wendy> zakim, who's on the phone?
20:06:55 <Zakim> On the phone I see Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Bengt_Farre (muted), Roberto_Castaldo, Avi (muted), Roberto_Ellero (muted), Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy,
20:06:58 <Zakim> ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi, Takayuki_Watanabe, Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Tom (muted)
20:08:15 <Zakim> +??P14
20:08:17 <wendy> conformance scope
20:08:32 <rscano> zakim, ?P14 is Roberto_Scano
20:08:32 <Zakim> sorry, rscano, I do not recognize a party named '?P14'
20:08:48 <rscano> zakim, ??P14 is Roberto_Scano
20:08:48 <Zakim> +Roberto_Scano; got it
20:08:53 <rscano> zakim, I am Roberto_Scano
20:08:53 <Zakim> ok, rscano, I now associate you with Roberto_Scano
20:09:08 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0060.html
20:09:19 <Yvette> zakim, mute me
20:09:20 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:09:34 <sh1mmer> q+
20:09:40 <wendy> basis of proposal: we don't define scope. leave it to policy makers.
20:10:11 <sh1mmer> q-
20:10:22 <wendy> only exception is that we have a logo (different from conformance) and would have standards for logo use.
20:11:12 <wendy> logo - in the guidelines or separate doc 
20:11:31 <Yvette> zakim, unmute me
20:11:31 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:11:35 <wendy> (currently, for 1.0 is a separate document - )
20:11:37 <wendy> ack john
20:12:13 <Yvette> q+ to say "I like it, good to apply internationally"
20:12:15 <wendy> e.g., highly accessible navigation that links to inaccessible content.
20:12:53 <sh1mmer> q+
20:13:20 <wendy> who cares if it does or doesn't pass if they didn't make accessible, they wouldn't, although someone says they should.
20:13:48 <wendy> other group say, "we want navigation pages, and xy, but every research paper doesn't have to be made accessible."
20:13:49 <Yvette> zakim, who's making noise?
20:13:56 <wendy> that would the institutional policy
20:14:08 <Zakim> Yvette, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: Yvette_Hoitink (2%)
20:14:27 <wendy> ?
20:14:31 <wendy> zakim, who's talking?
20:14:49 <Zakim> wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Takayuki_Watanabe (4%), Ben-and-Gregg (4%)
20:14:57 <Yvette> distinctly odd
20:15:30 <wendy> it would be up to the organization to set policy.  if the institution want to make sure that key instructional pages be accessible, they say "key instructional pages must meet Level a" (for example)
20:16:07 <rscano> q+ roberto for explain how italy make policy
20:16:12 <rscano> q+ roberto
20:16:20 <wendy> we don't want to build all possibilities into our guidelines, but maybe eowg or us make some exmaples/recommendations. or perhaps people come together to agree on way to apply this.
20:17:32 <rscano> q- roberto
20:18:41 <rscano> in Italy we will do two testing for two different levels: technical evalutation and human centered evalutation
20:19:16 <wendy> q+ to say, "like to hear from tool devs, industry"
20:19:56 <wendy> ack yvette
20:19:56 <Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "I like it, good to apply internationally"
20:21:14 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:21:31 <Yvette> zakim, mute me
20:21:31 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted
20:21:54 <wendy> conformance in chunks.
20:22:15 <Zakim> +Mike_Barta
20:22:58 <wendy> see people being piecemeal, less effort.
20:23:08 <wendy> like to see conformance claims encapsulated to diff parts of the site.
20:23:50 <wendy> identifiable parts of the site, reasonable parts of site
20:23:55 <wendy> ack wendy
20:23:55 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "like to hear from tool devs, industry"
20:25:08 <rscano> i like the idea of the content labels like UAAG 1.0
20:26:38 <wendy> 2 thoughts:
20:27:04 <sh1mmer> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0060.html
20:27:19 <sh1mmer> oh mike isn't on irc
20:27:22 <sh1mmer> hehe
20:27:30 <wendy> 1 - content labels, a vocabulary to help people make claims. e.g., "all dcuments are included in this claim, but real-time 'data" is not"
20:27:51 <wendy> so, documents, multimedia, real-tiem...not sure if could have exhaustive list, but help people scope via keyword 
20:28:34 <wendy> 2 - would like to hear from tool devs. could this fragment?  part of goal of harmonization is to give tool devs a stronger argument for incorporating accessibility into tools. would like to think about effects of the proposal on harmonization/fragmentation.
20:29:22 <rscano> wendy I can prepare a note how we are studying the conformance for italian public administration web sites
20:30:22 <wendy> currently, orgs don't make whole site compliant. they start with most important pages (e.g., flight reservation now, maybe make another section later).
20:31:39 <wendy> guidelines should not say that organizations can claim certain parts of site to certain levels. leave that to policy makers. here, just defin deliverables.
20:31:55 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:31:56 <wendy> someplace have to state what constitutes conformance. need to say ok to do it via scoping or not.
20:32:16 <wendy> don't even mention scoping
20:32:28 <Yvette> zakim, unmute me
20:32:28 <Zakim> Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted
20:32:32 <sh1mmer> q+
20:32:40 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#Conformance
20:33:31 <wendy> in 1.0: The scope covered by the claim (e.g., page, site, or defined portion of a site.). 
20:34:25 <wendy> zakim, set timer to 2 mintues
20:34:25 <Zakim> I don't understand 'set timer to 2 mintues', wendy
20:34:28 <wendy> zakim, set timer to 2 minutes
20:34:28 <Zakim> I don't understand 'set timer to 2 minutes', wendy
20:34:29 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:34:36 <wendy> zakim, give each speaker 2 minutes
20:34:36 <Zakim> ok, wendy
20:34:46 <wendy> q+ tom
20:34:48 <wendy> ack tom
20:35:05 <wendy> worry that if we don't say anything about scope, people will use the logo w/out appropriately scoping the site.
20:35:16 <wendy> give different logos, one for full site one for partial site
20:36:28 <sh1mmer> ack Andi
20:36:30 <wendy> ack andi
20:36:38 <wendy> do we have to have a logo? what if we don't have a logo?
20:37:43 <wendy> it's not necessarily logo, but text that makes it clear what the conformance scope is.
20:37:56 <wendy>   +1 to keep the logo
20:38:11 <wendy> in netherlands, never seen one of the logos
20:38:29 <rscano> here in Italy too much logos that show conformance AAA that is not reached instead :-/
20:38:38 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
20:38:41 <Zakim> -Mike_Barta
20:38:57 <wendy> if someone using logo, and they don't deserve to, could alleviate that problem.
20:39:02 <wendy> is logo usage an open issue?
20:39:21 <wendy> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html
20:39:29 <wendy> currently a separate thing already
20:39:35 <wendy> action: gv take logo issue to WAI CG
20:40:29 <wendy> harmonization: not worried about this as diff countries implementing diff technical requirements.
20:40:37 <wendy> today, can scope diff things. doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
20:40:49 <wendy> author has to decide what type of page they are creating, and still need to make call as to what applies or not.
20:41:25 <wendy> easy to create a set of checks for a subset of countries that you want to conform to? (thinking about authoring tools)
20:42:14 <sh1mmer> q+
20:42:36 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:43:04 <wendy> make sure that people have common way to look at sites
20:43:11 <wendy> zakim, stop timing
20:43:11 <Zakim> ok, wendy
20:43:42 <wendy> 1. follow lead of wcag 1.0 wrt conformance scoping, which is to allow it in the conformance claim
20:44:03 <wendy> objections?
20:44:21 <wendy> 2. wrt logo: refer to CG to determine if we or EOWG should deal with logo use?
20:44:26 <wendy> objections?
20:44:31 <wendy> no objections to either
20:44:41 <rellero> rellero has joined #wai-wcag
20:46:08 <wendy> if a logo exists, can easily see how page conforms.  if scoping is genuinely there, there should be a way for the user to easily identify the accessibility. either via accessibility statement or something on the page.
20:46:34 <Yvette> q+ to say "requiring logo and/or accessibility statement is limiting presentation and cant be lvl 1"
20:47:05 <wendy> ack yvette
20:47:05 <Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "requiring logo and/or accessibility statement is limiting presentation and cant be lvl 1"
20:47:38 <wendy> we don't want to require people to limit presentation or how they express themselves, and if we require a visible statement, then violates our principles.
20:47:49 <sh1mmer> 1+
20:47:50 <wendy> "easy to find" w/out metadata, is via presentation to the user.
20:47:51 <sh1mmer> q+
20:47:53 <wendy> ack andi
20:48:06 <wendy> not requiring to make, but if they do, should be easy to find
20:48:16 <wendy> limit the way people express conformance?
20:48:47 <sh1mmer> ack Tom
20:48:47 <wendy> if we don't require people to state conformance, it's up to them to state how to do it,
20:49:29 <wendy> when people have mixed claims b/c of scope and it is not being declared. thus, at a minimum, if you make a scoped claim, it should be clearly defined.
20:49:43 <wendy> so that people don't have to search through what is inaccessible to find it (it = the claim?)
20:50:13 <wendy> it = the scope of the claim
20:50:22 <wendy> ack john
20:52:07 <wendy> ack jason
20:52:19 <sh1mmer> Zakim, who is talking
20:52:19 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is talking', sh1mmer
20:52:24 <sh1mmer> Zakim, who's talking
20:52:24 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who's talking', sh1mmer
20:52:34 <sh1mmer> Zakim, who's talking?
20:52:53 <Zakim> sh1mmer, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben-and-Gregg (83%)
20:55:08 <wendy> definitions of levels:
20:55:38 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0034.html
20:56:21 <wendy> level 1: do not specify how information is presented (by user agents completes the thought)
20:57:51 <wendy> main diff: john adds, "achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,
20:57:51 <wendy> scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents,
20:57:51 <wendy> including assistive technologies;
20:57:52 <wendy> "
20:58:38 <wendy> q+ to say "reasonably applicable"
20:58:54 <wendy> trying to make explicit our assumptions 
20:59:00 <wendy> zakim, who's making noise?
20:59:14 <Zakim> wendy, listening for 14 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (6%), Andi (20%), Ben-and-Gregg (71%), [Microsoft] (3%)
20:59:25 <wendy> ack dave
21:00:32 <wendy> 1 is what you must do or user agent can't do anything
21:01:40 <wendy> is a proxy server a user agent?
21:02:04 <wendy> user agent WG would not consider a proxy server a user agent.
21:02:14 <wendy> what if the server is on your own computer?
21:02:16 <sh1mmer> q+
21:02:18 <rscano> http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/glossary.html#def-user-agent
21:02:32 <sh1mmer> zakim, who's making noise?
21:02:37 <rscano> "Any software that retrieves and renders Web content for users. This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs — including assistive technologies — that help in retrieving and rendering Web content. 
21:02:38 <rscano> "
21:02:42 <Zakim> sh1mmer, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tom (4%)
21:03:06 <wendy> ack wendy
21:03:06 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say "reasonably applicable"
21:03:18 <MattSEA> User Agent (from UAAG 1): 2. Any software that retrieves and renders Web content for users. This may include Web browsers, media players, plug-ins, and other programs ? including assistive technologies ? that help in retrieving and rendering Web content.
21:03:52 <rscano> yep just posted :)
21:04:05 <wendy> zakim, who is making noise?
21:04:17 <Zakim> wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: John_Slatin (69%), [Microsoft] (24%)
21:04:24 <wendy> zakim, mute [Microsoft]
21:04:24 <Zakim> [Microsoft] should now be muted
21:04:34 <Yvette> q+ to say "can / may sounds like deciding what is optional and what not"
21:05:09 <wendy> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0062.html
21:06:25 <wendy> ack sailesh
21:06:27 <GVAN> q+
21:06:38 <sh1mmer> q-
21:07:03 <wendy> 11 march 2004 draft doesn't say that if you do level 1, that is min accessible.
21:07:07 <wendy> doesn't say "minimum level"
21:07:39 <wendy> ack yvette
21:07:39 <Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "can / may sounds like deciding what is optional and what not"
21:07:53 <wendy> "can do" makes level 2 sound optional.
21:08:06 <wendy> should leave it up to the policy makers which level your should aim for.
21:08:32 <wendy> ala email, there are many diff things at level 3: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004AprJun/0074.html
21:08:39 <wendy> some are applicable to all sites, but too much effort
21:08:48 <wendy> ack andi
21:08:50 <Zakim> -Katie_Haritos-Shea
21:09:15 <wendy> like john's clarification of how we put things into levels, but to communicate outside the group, propose:
21:09:17 <wendy> level 1 - required
21:09:20 <wendy> level 2 - recommended
21:09:24 <wendy> level 3 - ??
21:09:31 <wendy> ack gvan
21:09:48 <wendy> don't want to overload the word "recommendation"
21:10:04 <wendy> and if they are required for level 2, then gets confusing
21:10:11 <wendy> (level 2 conformance)
21:10:19 <wendy> 2 - generally doable and applicable
21:10:27 <Yvette> q+ to say "level 1 - minimum, level 2 - basic, level 3 - advanced"
21:10:30 <wendy> 1 - must be done
21:10:48 <wendy> q+ to say, "must be done to conform - don't need to say to increase accessibility or user agents..."
21:11:04 <wendy> 3 - goes beyond levels 1 and 2
21:11:09 <rscano> level 2: suggested
21:11:13 <wendy> ack john
21:11:45 <wendy> reword the 1st item, "level 1 allow content to be made accessible by user agents"
21:11:49 <wendy> 2 enhance accessibility
21:12:21 <wendy> ack yvette
21:12:21 <Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "level 1 - minimum, level 2 - basic, level 3 - advanced"
21:12:26 <wendy> ack wendy
21:12:26 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "must be done to conform - don't need to say to increase accessibility or user agents..."
21:13:42 <wendy> ack andi
21:13:58 <wendy> yes, could say, "level 1 is the min that is required"
21:14:07 <wendy> people say, "how did you divide them"
21:15:13 <bcaldwell> ack Sailesh
21:15:33 <wendy> author might use a level 2 criteria to make the content accessible and not use markup.
21:15:51 <wendy> for many guidelines, there is not a level 1 criteria.
21:16:01 <wendy> when say, level 1is required and level 2 is optional, we have a problem.
21:16:07 <wendy> we havce a guideline for which there is no min requirement.
21:16:12 <wendy> how do we deal w/thath?
21:17:24 <wendy> originally, main distinction between level 1 and level 2 was level 1 - freedom to present info however. level 2, some restritions.
21:17:40 <wendy> right?
21:19:31 <wendy> for those guidelines that dont' have level 1, should say something like, "min conformance means meeting level 1. for those that don't have level 1, don't have to do level 2"
21:21:13 <Yvette> q+ to say "Wouldn't a phrase like 'necessary prerequisites' work in explaining what level 1 is? "
21:21:50 <wendy> ack john
21:22:12 <wendy> ack jason
21:22:32 <wendy> share concern of "reasonably applicable"
21:23:00 <wendy> applicable to all types of content - no notion of reasonable. it is either applicable or not.
21:23:25 <wendy> we don't define what "hard" means - something that is difficult in tech y could be easy in tech x
21:23:38 <GVAN> q+
21:23:56 <wendy> only things that are hard are those that require a great deal of human effort and there is no expected tech to be available in reasonable time to make things easier
21:24:14 <wendy> ack yvette
21:24:14 <Zakim> Yvette, you wanted to say "Wouldn't a phrase like 'necessary prerequisites' work in explaining what level 1 is? "
21:24:37 <wendy> we define what's hard. if we put it in level 1, people will create tools to make it easier.
21:25:31 <wendy> necessary prerequisites - level 1 don't define accessiblity, but base level to build on.
21:25:36 <wendy> ack gvan
21:25:45 <sh1mmer> q+
21:26:24 <wendy> all levels: testable, etc.
21:26:59 <wendy> level 1: do not effect presentation, etc. (other things from john's proposal)
21:27:17 <wendy> level 3: may be applied [reasonably] to all web resources
21:27:27 <wendy> if lose reasonable, then must be applicable to all sites
21:27:38 <wendy> [need to say reasonable if not dealing w/scope?]
21:27:53 <wendy> the WCAG WG reasonably felt could be applied to all content
21:28:50 <wendy> q+ to say, "yes, the WCAG WG felt that these were reasonable for level 1"
21:28:57 <Yvette> q+ to say "can be applied to a wide range of web content"
21:29:40 <wendy> ack tom
21:30:07 <wendy> level 1 as "the minimum to make site usable" not reasonable accessible equivalent
21:30:36 <wendy> almost a prerequisite. useful to describe that.
21:30:44 <wendy> not until get to level 2 that site is fully accessible.
21:32:15 <wendy> people that meet level 1 - basic access
21:32:24 <wendy> there are no "blocker"
21:37:22 <Yvette> q-
21:37:29 <MattSEA> zakim, close the queue
21:37:29 <wendy> ack wendy
21:37:31 <Zakim> ok, MattSEA, the speaker queue is closed
21:37:32 <Zakim> wendy, you wanted to say, "yes, the WCAG WG felt that these were reasonable for level 1"
21:37:39 <wendy> q-
21:37:49 <wendy> ack jason
21:38:34 <wendy> guideline 4.2: Accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's or specific markup) are used.
21:38:44 <wendy> this would not fit into the level 2 defn being discussed
21:39:36 <wendy> which is exactly why if we just say, "this is what the group determined reasonable..."
21:40:05 <wendy> action: gregg send summary to list to start discussion (about conformance)
21:41:18 <Zakim> -Wendy
21:41:55 <bengt> bye
21:41:57 <rellero> Bye
21:41:58 <Zakim> -Andi
21:41:58 <rcastaldo> 01bye 
21:41:59 <rscano> bye
21:42:00 <Zakim> -Sailesh_Panchang
21:42:01 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
21:42:01 <Zakim> -Matt
21:42:02 <Zakim> -Dave_MacDonald
21:42:03 <rcastaldo> rcastaldo has left #wai-wcag
21:42:04 <Zakim> -Bengt_Farre
21:42:05 <Zakim> -Tom
21:42:06 <Zakim> -Yvette_Hoitink
21:42:07 <Zakim> -John_Slatin
21:42:09 <Zakim> -Ben-and-Gregg
21:42:11 <Zakim> -Takayuki_Watanabe
21:42:13 <Zakim> -Loretta_Guarino_Reid
21:42:15 <Zakim> -Avi
21:42:17 <Zakim> -Roberto_Scano
21:42:19 <Zakim> -Roberto_Castaldo
21:42:21 <Zakim> -Roberto_Ellero
21:42:38 <Zakim> -JasonWhite
21:42:40 <Zakim> WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has ended
21:42:40 <nabe> nabe has left #wai-wcag
21:42:41 <Zakim> Attendees were Katie_Haritos-Shea, Sailesh_Panchang, Yvette_Hoitink, Avi, Bengt_Farre, Roberto_Ellero, Matt, John_Slatin, Wendy, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, JasonWhite, Andi,
21:42:43 <Zakim> ... Ben-and-Gregg, Dave_MacDonald, Roberto_Castaldo, Takayuki_Watanabe, Tom, Roberto_Scano, Mike_Barta, [Microsoft]
21:42:59 <wendy> zakim, bye
21:42:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wai-wcag
21:43:02 <wendy> RRSAgent, bye
21:43:02 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items:
21:43:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gv take logo issue to WAI CG [1]
21:43:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/15-wai-wcag-irc#T20-39-35
21:43:02 <RRSAgent> ACTION: gregg send summary to list to start discussion (about conformance) [2]
21:43:02 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2004/04/15-wai-wcag-irc#T21-40-05