See also: IRC log
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130115/results
<scribe> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
<scribe> scribenick: MaryJo
<Judy> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130115/results
One comment on Mary Jo's proposal is that the proper use of comprised is without 'of', so recommend changing that back.
<Judy> Leave it as editor's discretion.
LC-2676 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130115/results#xq15
RESOLUTION: Accept Mary Jo's proposed resolution for LC-2676 from the survey with 'comprised' replacing 'comprised of'.
LC-2655 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/20130115/results#xq19
Loic made a new proposal based on other's comments.
Suggestion that 'we' is replaced with 'The task force' throughout.
RESOLUTION: Accept proposed resolution to LC-2655 using Loic's new proposal from the survey and replacing 'we' with 'task force'.
Set of software is a difficult topic, and this is a place where EU M376 has decided to use 'software' in place of 'set of Web pages'.
The EU M376 had reached general agreement that 'software' made sense.
If this replacement continues to be used in M376 and gets picked up by the Section 508 Refresh, perhaps a note should be made that the requirements are a slightly modified version of WCAG 2.0 because the changes are critical to the appropriate application of WCAG to software.
The WCAG working group did not want us to make the replacement of 'software' for 'set of web pages' instead of using 'set of software'.
Perhaps we can provide enough advisory language surrounding it that we can give enough support to this replacement.
The task force is more constrained in what we can put in our document. We should harmonize as much as possible, but there may need to be some acceptable divergence in the text in our document vs. the M376 and Section 508.
We may be able to formulate something in a new sub-group to take forward to the WCAG working group and continue the discussion with them.
The WCAG working group has the argument that this all flows from the wording in the unit of conformance, so that's why the replacements were not accepted before.
We should revisit this topic next week.
<korn> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/cross-cutting-issues-and-notes/comparison-to-m376
Our wiki isn't up-to-date compared to our latest WCAG2ICT document, so the text in the table is the same as our 2nd draft document.
The EU M376 content in the table is from the December 5 version.
We would like to be able to take a blended approach to resolving the differences, with some items being fixed in the WCAG2ICT document and some fixed in EU M376, as it makes the best solution.
We should go through the items in the table that show differences with suggested updates in a survey.
However, our document is a note and not a standard. We should make changes in our document, as makes sense but don't necessarily have to harmonize all of the verbiage by changing M376.
Members of WCAG2ICT can comment on EU M376 and 508 individually.
It is more important for the standards bodies to harmonize than for them to fully harmonize with our task force's note.
This task force is not planning to formally submit comments to M376 directly, but we want to have a meeting of the minds so we could come to an agreement and then individually make comments.
Other than European and English spelling of words, any minor differences in wording typically brings up questions so we want to minimize that as much as possible.
In EU, they are mandating word changes from 'must' to 'shall'.
Since these terms mean essentially the same thing, it will be an acceptable divergence between our document and M376. However, there must be something in the preamble that shall explain that 'must' and 'shall' mean the same thing.
We should cover the comparisons and suggested changes in multiple surveys . One for documents and one for software, and a later one for closed products.
Circling back to the 'set of software' subject. M376 and 508 could decide to use those SC for 'software', but we are constrained to using 'set of software'.
The Access Board really does want clear advice from our task force.
The task force will not be meeting Friday 18 January, but will meet on 22 January (Tuesday) instead.
We need to check to see if all of the previous meeting's resolutions as well as this meeting's updates are entered into the system. Mary Jo will send a list of the issues so Gregg can take them to the WCAG working group.
We also need to bring the current WCAG2ICT task force document text back into the Google wiki so it is up-to-date.
<shadi> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/coninue/continue/ Succeeded: s/conformance/unit of conformance/ Succeeded: s/HI sorry to be late// Succeeded: s/based on this comparison// Found Scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller Found ScribeNick: MaryJo Default Present: Shadi, Judy, Bruce_Bailey, Loic_Martinez, Kiran_Kaja, Mike_P, +1.512.255.aaaa, MaryJo, Peter_Korn, Gregg_Vanderheiden Present: Shadi Judy Bruce_Bailey Loic_Martinez Kiran_Kaja Mike_P +1.512.255.aaaa MaryJo Peter_Korn Gregg_Vanderheiden Regrets: Gregg_Vanderheiden Andi_Snow-Weaver David_MacDonald WARNING: No meeting title found!