20:53:18 RRSAgent has joined #wai-wcag 20:53:18 logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-wai-wcag-irc 20:53:23 ben_ has joined #wai-wcag 20:53:53 Meeting: WCAG WG weekly telecon 20:54:08 WAI_WCAG()4:00PM has now started 20:54:16 +??P6 20:54:28 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0687.html 20:54:36 agenda+ TTF update 20:54:43 agenda+ Agenda and Procedures for Today 20:54:54 agenda+ Overview of Baseline discussion and proposal items from F2F 20:55:02 agenda+ Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria 20:55:10 agenda+ Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals 20:55:16 +??P7 20:55:19 agenda+ Impact analysis: Techniques 20:55:29 agenda+ Checking in: Responses from people on the call 20:55:34 zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre 20:55:34 +Bengt_Farre; got it 20:55:38 agenda+ Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance 20:55:46 agenda+ Status check: action items, progress toward milestones 20:55:47 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 20:55:48 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 20:55:52 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:55:52 On the phone I see ??P6, Bengt_Farre 20:56:01 makoto or yvette, are you ??P6? 20:56:17 Michael has joined #wai-wcag 20:56:38 zakim, ??P6 is Makoto 20:56:38 +Makoto; got it 20:57:26 Regrets: Roberto Ellero, Roberto Scano, Roberto Castaldo, Kerstin Goldsmith, Luca Mascaro, Tim Boland, Sebastiano Nutarelli 20:57:29 thx makoto 20:57:55 tecks has joined #wai-wcag 20:58:37 jslatin has joined #wai-wcag 20:58:47 Hey John!!! 20:58:55 hey john! 20:59:14 Is anyon eon call yet 20:59:32 +Wendy 20:59:51 zakim, who's on the phone? 20:59:51 On the phone I see Makoto, Bengt_Farre, Wendy 20:59:53 +??P8 21:00:05 zakim, mute me 21:00:05 Makoto should now be muted 21:00:05 zakim, ??P8 is Ben_and_Gregg 21:00:06 +Ben_and_Gregg; got it 21:00:16 +Michael_Cooper 21:00:27 Hey there. Using MIRC. Have to do a "read whole window" to get the transcript window so won't do it often... 21:00:49 +??P10 21:00:58 +John_Slatin 21:01:12 +Dave_MacDonald 21:01:18 zakim, ??P10 is Yvette_Hoitink 21:01:18 +Yvette_Hoitink; got it 21:01:32 +Matt 21:01:34 nabe has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:34 Becky_Gibson has joined #wai-wcag 21:01:44 +[IBM] 21:01:52 Andi has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:07 +Neil_Soiffer 21:02:09 +Loretta_Guarino_Reid 21:02:20 +Becky_Gibson 21:02:22 zakim, [IBM] is Andi 21:02:22 +Andi; got it 21:02:24 +[IPcaller] 21:02:26 mcmay has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:29 +Doyle_Burnett 21:02:31 zakim, IPcaller is Takayuki 21:02:31 +Takayuki; got it 21:02:41 -Matt 21:02:41 David has joined #wai-wcag 21:02:50 +[Microsoft] 21:02:52 Am I in the matrix 21:02:53 zakim, who's making noise? 21:02:59 zakim, [Microsoft] is Mike 21:02:59 +Mike; got it 21:03:03 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_and_Gregg (94%), John_Slatin (14%), Dave_MacDonald (80%), Becky_Gibson (80%), Takayuki (100%), Wendy (5%) 21:03:07 +Matt 21:03:08 zakim, I am Takayuki 21:03:09 ok, nabe, I now associate you with Takayuki 21:03:14 zakim, mute me 21:03:14 Takayuki should now be muted 21:03:31 I think I was talking when zakim said I'm noisy 21:03:35 zakim, drop matt 21:03:35 Matt is being disconnected 21:03:37 -Matt 21:03:38 +JasonWhite 21:03:48 +Matt 21:03:59 Neil has joined #wai-wcag 21:04:02 zakim, who's on the phone? 21:04:02 On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Bengt_Farre, Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, 21:04:02 zakim, mute me 21:04:06 ... Becky_Gibson, Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, Mike, JasonWhite 21:04:07 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:04:36 zakim, unmute me 21:04:36 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 21:06:06 gregg has joined #wai-wcag 21:06:41 Wendy - I am on the phone and IRC 21:07:08 zakim, mute me 21:07:08 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 21:07:11 scribe: wendy 21:07:29 bengt - if i scribe for the first 30 minutes, could you sribe the next 30 minutes? 21:07:46 could try with my bad english 21:08:10 wac: discussed how baseline proposal effects techniques. ben, becky, and michael sent something today. overlaps with techniques sorting. 21:08:33 s/wac/mc 21:08:53 mc: test cases. shelved discussion for a while. not surehow long. 21:09:31 mc: discussed some about plan 21:09:35 zakim, close item 1 21:09:35 agendum 1 closed 21:09:37 I see 8 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:09:38 2. Agenda and Procedures for Today [from wendy] 21:09:41 zakim, take up item 2 21:09:41 agendum 2. "Agenda and Procedures for Today" taken up [from wendy] 21:10:18 gv: going through "key results" msg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0642.html 21:10:29 gv: describes process used at the F2F to reach proposed resolutions 21:10:53 gv: found places where UAAG is useful, but not useful as baseline. 21:11:36 gv: every time considered a baseline, the useful life of wcag descreased. 21:12:26 gv: baseline and techniques - clear that if guidelines said "do x" and techs said "do subset of x" that would be changing what is required for conformance. 21:12:30 zakim, who's making noise? 21:12:41 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Ben_and_Gregg (76%), Dave_MacDonald (61%) 21:12:47 zakim, mute Dave 21:12:47 Dave_MacDonald should now be muted 21:12:59 zakim, unmute Dave 21:12:59 Dave_MacDonald should no longer be muted 21:13:06 zakim, who's muted? 21:13:06 I see Makoto, Yvette_Hoitink, Neil_Soiffer, Takayuki muted 21:13:37 zakim, mute me 21:13:37 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 21:15:29 gv: we've set an aggressive timeline and thanks to those who are working to help reachit. 21:15:53 gv: thank you to those who worked so hard this last week to prep for today's meeting. 21:16:04 q+ 21:16:38 agenda? 21:16:58 ack john 21:17:19 js: wcag won't set baseline doesn't mean that baselines won't be set. that takes place outside of wcag (govnt agency, policy, etc.) 21:17:42 ben has joined #wai-wcag 21:17:52 -Bengt_Farre 21:18:30 gv: typically at f2f we create proposals and bring to list/group to discuss since not everyone can attend the f2f. 21:19:48 +??P7 21:19:59 zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre 21:19:59 +Bengt_Farre; got it 21:20:03 zakim, I am Bengt_Farre 21:20:03 ok, bengt, I now associate you with Bengt_Farre 21:20:07 gv: goes through agenda for today 21:20:22 gv: "round robin" means that each person says something. starting w/those not in L.A. 21:20:49 gv: not debating, but get everything on the table 21:21:25 gv: by raising some of these issues, it may help us make a more intelligent baseline decision 21:22:13 -Bengt_Farre 21:22:20 zakim, close item 2 21:22:20 agendum 2 closed 21:22:21 I see 7 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:22:22 3. Overview of Baseline discussion and proposal items from F2F [from wendy] 21:22:24 zakim, close item 3 21:22:24 agendum 3 closed 21:22:25 I see 6 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:22:26 4. Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria [from wendy] 21:22:31 zakim, take up item 4 21:22:31 agendum 4. "Impact analysis: Guidelines and Success Criteria" taken up [from wendy] 21:23:02 + +1.214.855.aaaa 21:23:10 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0706.html 21:23:31 zakim, +1.214.855.aaa is Bengt_Farre 21:23:31 +Bengt_Farre; got it 21:23:33 js: action item from f2f. how would SC need to be changed to describe functional outcomes if no baseline is adopted in wcag 2.0. 21:23:40 rscano has joined #wai-wcag 21:23:42 -Bengt_Farre 21:24:06 js: Mike, Michale, Gregg, and John. 21:24:45 +??P7 21:24:50 zakim, ??P7 is Bengt_Farre 21:24:50 +Bengt_Farre; got it 21:25:00 js: where there is an effect, proposed wording. often the proposal is more about addressing a functional outcome than a baseline issue. 21:25:42 js: did not propose new wording for 3.1 since john is working on comprehensive 3.1 proposal. 21:25:59 js: likewise, others are working on 4.2 21:26:48 js: becky posted friendly amendment about 1.4. 21:27:26 gv: the big question is, "does the impact analysis indicate that the approach is workable or unworkable?" 21:27:55 js: bottom line - it would be doable. 21:28:36 mc, mb: nothing to add 21:28:46 zakim, close this item 21:28:46 agendum 4 closed 21:28:47 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:28:49 5. Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals [from wendy] 21:29:08 zakim, take up item 5 21:29:08 agendum 5. "Summary of follow-up discussions and proposals " taken up [from wendy] 21:29:22 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0703.html 21:29:33 sure 21:29:39 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0715.html 21:29:44 scribe: bengt 21:29:56 wc: 2 messages 21:30:45 wc: 6 independent proposals made 21:32:36 wc: using terms differently 21:32:59 wc: issue between normative standard required 21:35:01 gv: lets walk these issues and see what ppl thinks about them 21:36:25 gv: we didnt consent on the definitions of the terms 21:37:33 ack we 21:37:37 ack john 21:37:47 wc: current definition of normative 21:37:56 q+ 21:38:10 wc: assumptions is required for conformance 21:38:55 wc: sync up with what we mean with that 21:40:51 ack david 21:41:19 normative - an authorative standard...Webster's 21:41:33 david: normative can only apply to a doc through w3c 21:41:51 wac: standard is used in many ways. noarmtive, also confusing. is RSS a standard? not published by ISO or W3C ... community-based. 21:42:57 so "normative" = "required or permitted by the recommendaiton"? 21:44:15 -Bengt_Farre 21:44:35 gv: need to be sure we don't treat things differntly in diff. docs 21:44:36 David jumps in until bengt comes back on scribe 21:44:58 scribe: David 21:45:07 +Sebastiano_Nutarelli 21:45:32 zakim, Sebastiano_Nutarelli is Bengt_Farre 21:45:32 +Bengt_Farre; got it 21:45:43 wc: I believe relations hip of UAAG suffici to uaag tech is same as oursc to our GL 21:45:51 scribe: bengt 21:46:24 wc: UAAG has normative techniques in baseline 21:46:52 time check... 21:46:58 wc: (add) our sc are are same role as sufficient techniques in UAAG 1 21:47:08 q? 21:47:48 ack ja 21:48:58 jason: if the techniques has to be normative they have to be put through w3c process 21:49:32 -Bengt_Farre 21:49:37 I'm back on scribe: 21:50:08 wc: I'm concerned about how people will claim conformance no matter what we do 21:51:18 gv: omment on #8 - f2f - baseline responsibiliy is on many, customers, governments, authors etc. 21:51:40 gv: baseline responsibilities will fall on a whole bunch of people 21:52:00 wc: let's move on and take this to the mailing list 21:52:22 +Bengt_Farre 21:52:31 wc: assumptions we need to address, there are tons, things 21:53:35 gv: issues wendy has identified are pulled from the list, summaries, not necessarily her issues, just capturing issues for us to look at, these issues are meant to inform us, a lot of issues will be overcome by events 21:53:57 wc: some of the disagreements we are having is using terms differntsly 21:54:01 zakim, who's muted? 21:54:01 I see Makoto, Yvette_Hoitink, Neil_Soiffer, Takayuki muted 21:54:06 zakim, mute bengt 21:54:06 Bengt_Farre should now be muted 21:54:29 gv:as editors we found out we have some questions to ask above us, in the W3c 21:54:39 no 21:54:42 i'm hearing an echo. are others? (thought i might be your noise bengt) 21:54:48 s/noise/line 21:54:52 zakim, close this item 21:54:52 agendum 5 closed 21:54:53 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 21:54:53 no echo here 21:54:54 6. Impact analysis: Techniques [from wendy] 21:54:58 zakim, take up item 6 21:54:58 agendum 6. "Impact analysis: Techniques " taken up [from wendy] 21:55:11 zakim, unmute david 21:55:11 sorry, wendy, I do not see a party named 'david' 21:55:15 oops 21:55:19 zakim, unmute bengt 21:55:19 Bengt_Farre should no longer be muted 21:56:16 mc: impact analysis, not having baseline means can't write tehniques to a particular baseline so we have to write techiques from weach sc for lots of "if's and ors" 21:56:54 wc: we may have to clarify technologies whether or not to includes UA's 21:56:58 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0707.html 21:57:03 wc=mc 21:57:08 above 21:57:32 q+ 21:58:05 mc: one issue is clear we cannot have an inventory of all techniques---would have been hard otherwise now super hard given all the combinations in a baselines 21:58:17 imposible to inventory als Us 21:58:18 q+ to ask, "would provide information to help authors make reasonable choices" 21:58:37 Us= User Agents above 21:59:53 mc: gracefule degradation, think if CSS not in baseline, realize that you use layout info tat helps understandibilities,,,, difficult position, graceful degradation mwould be layout tables and a big problem 22:01:57 gv: makes me shutter to think of all combinations, is it possible to put a technicuqe and put assumptions below that in a list, 22:02:54 mc: we see documenting it in metadata so we can assemble it easily but want that info in the prose of the tech doc also so average web designer can use it... 22:02:56 ack 22:02:59 ack g 22:03:01 ack w 22:03:01 wendy, you wanted to ask, "would provide information to help authors make reasonable choices" 22:04:21 wc: would there be information, if you can make assumptions about audience, here's what you can do....I think we need the techniques walk thrugh ASAP 22:04:51 wc: especially scripting, concerned how people will claim conformance. 22:05:16 mc: fortunately scripting doc is short....wendy ben becky & mike need to get together 22:06:19 q+ 22:06:21 bc: need to scope work by having statements about "this is what we recommend as a basline" and have 3 or 4 of them otherwise scope is infinate 22:06:33 gv: soping-what's that 22:06:56 bc: scoping - above no soping 22:08:03 -Mike 22:08:13 bc: I'm concerned we have no good information about what a baseline...I need to know...are you targeting a 4 year old screen reader or a 2 year old... 22:08:44 gv: can you put together a short post...for example this is a reasonable baseline 22:09:44 action: ben to send some "for example" recommended baselines to list for discussion 22:10:27 neil: I think a user coming in is going to be unsure about a reasonable baseline and won't look in the tech docs, in writing techniqes we need to say.."theese are the most likely combinations, " ignotre unlikely ne w...have the expertise 22:10:41 mc: 22:10:58 mc: need good info on how to chose good baseline, 22:11:33 gv: if not in tech doc, perhoas we need a "how to set a good a baseline" non-normative doc 22:11:54 gv: even if its for our own use 22:12:18 q+ 22:12:21 ack neil 22:12:36 neil:above said ignore unlikely combinations 22:12:43 ack we 22:13:44 action: ben, becky, michael sort techniques. send something to list by tuesday 5 april 22:14:23 gv: we need t find out if we have found a solution or have we just shifted an unsolvable prob from GL to Tech docs we need to answer that 22:14:32 zakim, close this item 22:14:32 agendum 6 closed 22:14:33 I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:14:34 7. Checking in: Responses from people on the call [from wendy] 22:14:38 zakim, unmute me 22:14:38 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:14:39 zakim, take up item 7 22:14:39 agendum 7. "Checking in: Responses from people on the call " taken up [from wendy] 22:14:43 zakim, who's on the phone? 22:14:43 On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, 22:14:47 ... Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre 22:14:51 zakim, mute me 22:14:51 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:14:57 yvette, matt, neil, jason, bengt 22:15:14 people on call not in LA= neil, jason, yvette, Bengt, matt 22:15:20 roundrobin 22:15:27 starting with them 22:16:07 neil: think the general idea, good, but baseline just keeps coming back, shouldn't be normative but we need to nail down baseline down,, 22:16:09 zakim, unmute me 22:16:09 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:16:49 q+ yvette, Bengt, matt 22:18:24 jw: reasonable that tech should make assumption about UA support for some features, separate from guidelines proper, I agree we shouldn't make normative baseline probably the guide to the guidelines would be ok for baseline discussion 22:19:52 gv: want to capture, if in techniques, one were to say we provide underthese circumsatnces, likely to be true circumstances, doesn't say anything else cannot be conformant 22:20:40 gv: we can say " If you choose this baseline...the only way we no how to do it is ...' 22:21:19 ben: that's esactly what I meant...lay out reasonable baselines ...ignore unreasonable baselines 22:21:26 ack yv 22:22:46 yh: we should try to make as much of guidelines do not assume baselines...describe GL in functional terms not technical terms...worthhile to provide 3 extremesand describe pros and cons, do straw poll and see where people sit on this.... 22:23:30 ack bengt 22:24:25 bengt: confused about baseline, still think our work has to assume a baseline of what browsers we want people to have....should be backwards compatible.. 22:24:54 david: that's the opposite of what I understood 22:25:01 gv: did you mean we not get to humgup on bqackword compativle lets look forward 22:25:39 bengt; yes 22:25:42 mm: at first I was very unhappy about dropping baseline, thought authors needed a grasp of that, 22:26:39 zakim, mute me 22:26:39 Yvette_Hoitink should now be muted 22:26:47 mm: cause there are all kinds of people who assume lynx and others with ie5 with this spread, there will be people pointing at the same document....and not agree on conformance. but I've softened... 22:27:30 david? how are you doing? want me to minute for a while? 22:27:55 mm: we should probably toak about web apps 85% of sites have heavy jsw all working from the same tools so if we go this way , we need at least one example of a web app environment... 22:28:13 ack m 22:28:16 yeah sure 22:28:23 scribe: wendy 22:28:29 ack john 22:29:27 js: lgr mentioned at the f2f that we seem to use the word "baseline" in 2 senses: 1. thinking of baseline as a ceiling (bump head on as moving up the tech ladder) 2. a floor that you can solidly base assumptions on. 22:29:40 js: "profiles" may be less-loaded than "baseline" 22:30:09 m3m: "profiles" has a defined meaning in w3c terms. it's an applicable definition. 22:31:23 m3m: a profile is essentially a subset of applicability within a specification. e.g., "full" SVG, SVG Basic 22:32:39 gv: DLNA doesn't create standards, it only creates profiles of standards 22:33:44 action: wendy research proposals on profiles that have been mentioned before. 22:34:25 zakim, close this item 22:34:26 agendum 7 closed 22:34:26 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 22:34:27 8. Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance [from wendy] 22:34:33 zakim, take up item 8 22:34:33 agendum 8. "Harvesting Ideas: Impact on Conformance" taken up [from wendy] 22:34:42 zakim, who's on the phone? 22:34:42 On the phone I see Makoto (muted), Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper (muted), Yvette_Hoitink (muted), John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, 22:34:46 ... Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki (muted), Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre 22:35:15 q+ Makoto, Wendy, Ben_and_Gregg, Michael_Cooper, Yvette_Hoitink, John_Slatin, Dave_MacDonald, Matt, Andi, Neil_Soiffer, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Becky_Gibson, Takayuki, Doyle_Burnett, JasonWhite, Bengt_Farre 22:35:23 zakim, unmute me 22:35:23 Yvette_Hoitink should no longer be muted 22:35:23 ack makoto 22:36:22 q+ makoto 22:36:38 ack we 22:37:16 zakim, who's making noise? 22:37:24 zakim, mute me 22:37:24 Makoto should now be muted 22:37:27 wendy, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Makoto (33%), Ben_and_Gregg (42%), John_Slatin (19%), Dave_MacDonald (42%), Wendy (17%) 22:38:10 bc: as look at baseline, need to evaluate the baseline assumptions. not convinced that if those are at technology-level they are enough. 22:38:32 bc: as web content becomes more complex, the baseline assumptions needed to evaluate a conformance claim, will be specific to UA and features of specs. 22:39:04 bc: just like every author knows what combo of mainstream their content works on, need same level of detail for asst techs. 22:39:06 ack ben 22:39:17 oops. 22:39:22 q+ bengt 22:39:25 ack Ben_ 22:39:46 gv: might be tough to determine what tehcs ppl have on or not. 22:40:14 gv: is it legally possible to make a detailed claim? probably not likely they will not make any claim at all. 22:40:41 gv: realistic baselines - i conform to wcag 2.0 based on unrealistic assumptions...sounds dangerous to leave up to authors. 22:41:23 gv: whether we set a baseline or not, having authors think about and include in conformance claim, will make them likely to consider it. 22:41:29 yvette - can you minute for a while? 22:41:31 ack michael 22:41:34 (after you speak?) 22:41:34 Conformance is in context of a baseline, which I guess means you have to state what baseline you used in a claim. Should be simple, e.g., "WCAG conformant when tech A, B, and C supported". In metadata if we have metadata conformance claims. In prose if we have prose conformance claims. 22:42:30 q+ 22:42:52 ack yvette 22:43:30 Wendy, I still do not have a definete idea. So, I select "pass". 22:43:35 yh: if a site presumes IE...think claims should be based on technology not user agents. One assumption of accessibility is not assuming what technology your user has. 22:43:42 takayuki - ok 22:43:50 -Takayuki 22:43:54 yh: think many orgs will not make conformance claim, otherwise will make them liable. 22:44:04 q- takayuki 22:44:05 hand up 22:44:18 doyle - you are on the q twice 22:44:22 ack john_sl 22:44:43 js: assuming wcag does not specify a baseline, then conformance claim has to make statement about what techs the content supports. 22:45:09 js: agree info should be requested in simplest form. 22:45:18 js: agree, about technologies not UAs. 22:45:31 js: people can add UA info, don't prevent them. 22:45:35 ack Dave_Ma 22:45:52 dmd: agree, need a baseline statement in a conformance claim. provide a template. 22:46:24 dmd: don't know that we can easily say that you won't be assuming specific UAs, if go back to IE3, make certain assumptions. 22:46:52 ack Matt 22:47:04 m3m: agree, don't tie to specific UAs. 22:47:20 m3m: browsecap.ini enumerated all capabilities of every browser. had to be udpated every week. 22:47:59 ack andi 22:48:30 asw: agree, listing the techs as part of conf claim. agree, specify level of tech (or version?). agree, can spec UA but don't require. 22:48:30 Q+ does any common browser fully support std technologies (html, xhtml, css) 22:48:45 asw: like template idea 22:48:51 ack neil 22:49:06 q+ 22:49:19 ns: ppl likely to use a tool, like bobby, to claim conformance. w/a movable baseline, how will tools claim wcag conformance? 22:49:30 ns: create checkboxes? create own baseline? 22:49:41 ns: does WCAG 1.0 have a conformance claim that ppl make? 22:50:42 ack loretta 22:51:02 lgr: checking tools do have implicit baseline, perhaps be good if they made that implicit. 22:51:27 lgr: agree, specify by tech, not UA. however, requirements often based on UAs that need to support. 22:51:37 lgr: useful to have info about which UAs support which techs. 22:51:58 lgr: however, ack matt's comment about how often that info changes. 22:52:01 ack becky 22:52:07 bg: agree, spec by tech. 22:52:17