14:01:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:01:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-irc
14:01:19 <Judy> agenda?
14:02:04 <korn> korn has joined #wcag2ict
14:03:42 <Judy> agenda+ Confirm agenda, scribe
14:03:42 <Judy> agenda+ Discuss the Closing Comments and Submitting WCAG2ICT for final survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results
14:03:42 <Judy> agenda+ Confirm that we are ready to submit
14:05:37 <korn> Oh, right.  This isn't our start time!
15:52:56 <MichaelC> zakim, room for 20 at 16:30Z for 120 minutes?
15:52:58 <Zakim> ok, MichaelC; conference Team_(wcag2ict)16:30Z scheduled with code 2428 (2ICT) at 16:30Z for 120 minutes until 1830Z
16:27:27 <Mike_P> Mike_P has joined #wcag2ict
16:27:55 <Zakim> Team_(wcag2ict)16:30Z has now started
16:27:57 <Zakim> +??P0
16:28:26 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn
16:28:28 <Zakim> -Peter_Korn
16:28:28 <Zakim> +Peter_Korn
16:28:34 <korn1> korn1 has joined #wcag2ict
16:28:51 <korn1> Zakim, who is talking?
16:28:51 <Zakim> +Judy
16:29:02 <Zakim> korn1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P0 (38%), Peter_Korn (37%), ??P8 (34%)
16:29:17 <korn1> Zakim, who is talking?
16:29:27 <Zakim> korn1, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: ??P0 (75%), Peter_Korn (4%), Judy (80%)
16:29:29 <Judy> zakim, who's here?
16:29:30 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Peter_Korn, Judy
16:29:30 <Zakim> On IRC I see korn1, Mike_P, korn, RRSAgent, Zakim, Judy, shadi, MichaelC, trackbot
16:29:41 <shadi> zakim, code?
16:29:42 <Zakim> the conference code is 2428 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), shadi
16:30:07 <Judy> agenda?
16:30:09 <MaryJo> MaryJo has joined #wcag2ict
16:30:42 <Zakim> +Shadi
16:30:42 <Zakim> +[Microsoft]
16:30:53 <Zakim> +Mary_Jo_Mueller
16:31:12 <Zakim> +Gregg_Vanderheiden
16:31:17 <alex> alex has joined #wcag2ict
16:31:38 <Zakim> +Bruce_Bailey
16:31:46 <greggvanderheiden> greggvanderheiden has joined #wcag2ict
16:33:20 <Zakim> -Judy
16:33:39 <Zakim> +Judy
16:33:45 <korn1> Zakim, mute me
16:33:45 <Zakim> sorry, korn1, I do not know which phone connection belongs to you
16:33:49 <Zakim> +??P16
16:33:51 <janina> janina has joined #wcag2ict
16:34:11 <Zakim> -Judy
16:34:12 <korn1> Zakim, mute Peter_Korn
16:34:12 <Zakim> Peter_Korn should now be muted
16:34:18 <korn1> I'm still hearing static
16:34:28 <korn1> Zakim, unmute PEter_Korn
16:34:28 <Zakim> Peter_Korn should no longer be muted
16:34:53 <Zakim> +Judy
16:35:42 <janina> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:35:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Peter_Korn, Shadi, [Microsoft], Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, ??P16, Judy
16:35:46 <MaryJo> scribe: Mary_Jo_Mueller
16:35:50 <Judy> agenda?
16:35:55 <MaryJo> scribenick:MaryJo
16:36:40 <janina> zakim, ??P16 is me
16:36:40 <Zakim> +janina; got it
16:36:42 <korn1> Zakim, who is here?
16:36:42 <Zakim> On the phone I see ??P0, Peter_Korn, Shadi, [Microsoft], Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, janina, Judy
16:36:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see janina, greggvanderheiden, alex, MaryJo, korn1, Mike_P, korn, RRSAgent, Zakim, Judy, shadi, MichaelC, trackbot
16:36:46 <korn1> q+
16:37:26 <korn1> q-
16:38:59 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2819 as written.
16:39:22 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2820 as written.
16:40:20 <MaryJo> LC-2821 on 'set of documents': https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq1
16:40:44 <greggvanderheiden> q+
16:41:10 <greggvanderheiden> 
16:41:58 <korn1> q-
16:43:00 <greggvanderheiden> that functions as a single entity rather than a collection
16:44:30 <MaryJo> Discussion on proposed updates to the definition proposed by Mike (stated above).
16:44:37 <alex> q+
16:45:25 <korn1> q+
16:45:44 <greggvanderheiden> q+
16:45:50 <greggvanderheiden> ack a
16:45:57 <alex> q-
16:46:46 <korn1> q-
16:48:53 <MaryJo> Discussion on whether or not everyone has a common understanding of the words 'entity and collection'? 'Collection' is used in our two notes already and seems to be OK.
16:49:21 <MaryJo> The word 'item' may be a better word than 'entity'.
16:49:33 <Judy> q+
16:49:52 <Mike_P> q+
16:50:48 <korn1> q+
16:51:19 <greggvanderheiden> ack g
16:51:21 <greggvanderheiden> ack j
16:51:56 <greggvanderheiden> ack m
16:53:18 <korn1> ack k
16:53:20 <MaryJo> Question posed...when is an assembly not a collection?
16:54:51 <MaryJo> We have multiple pieces (an assembly) that would have to function as one item.  If the assembly of items doesn't function as one item, the assembly is not a set but is instead a collection.
16:56:10 <greggvanderheiden> a"
16:56:25 <greggvanderheiden> "THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION,
16:57:28 <korn1> q+
16:57:58 <greggvanderheiden> for example a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
16:57:59 <MaryJo> q+
17:01:06 <MaryJo> If we take all of the documents for a case and put it in a binder file, it could currently fit into the definition of a set of documents - even though the different elements in the bound group of files aren't authored by the same person and aren't really a set.
17:04:14 <alex> q+
17:04:53 <korn1> q-
17:07:02 <MaryJo> To look at an example, if you put documents together (concatenated) like a zip file situation or a virtual hard drive situation. You can't access each of the pieces inside of the group of things you have to unzip the zip file.
17:07:45 <MaryJo> s/you have to unzip/without unzipping/
17:10:45 <greggvanderheiden> q+
17:10:53 <alex> q-
17:11:01 <greggvanderheiden> ack m
17:11:17 <MaryJo> Zip files are an assembly of content, and if you define a document as an assembly of content it would mean the zip file is a document.
17:12:12 <korn1> q+
17:12:53 <janina> Aren't .odf actuall zip archives that together constitute the doc?
17:12:59 <MaryJo> This is why we were adding the clause about how the assembly of content functions.
17:13:11 <MaryJo> s/actuall/actually/
17:13:37 <greggvanderheiden> for example a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
17:13:42 <Zakim> +David_MacDonald
17:14:31 <greggvanderheiden> Example 1:  a binder file would be a document if it contained the pieces of a letter and bound them together but would not be a document if it were used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case.
17:14:56 <David> David has joined #wcag2ict
17:15:19 <alex> q+
17:15:32 <greggvanderheiden> Example 2:  an assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for movies would be a document
17:15:49 <greggvanderheiden> Example 2:  an assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document
17:16:14 <greggvanderheiden> I would reverse examples 1 and 2
17:16:14 <korn1> q-
17:16:17 <MaryJo> Proposal to extend Note 3 or Note 4 to exclude collections or encryptions of documents and also resolve the .odf comment from Janina above.
17:16:20 <greggvanderheiden> ack g
17:16:24 <greggvanderheiden> g+
17:18:42 <greggvanderheiden> Example 1: An assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document
17:18:47 <MaryJo> Out of the Example 2 above, the video, audio, captions and timing files is a good typical counter-example.
17:19:26 <greggvanderheiden> CounterExample: A binder file used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case would not be a document.
17:20:00 <greggvanderheiden> s/counter-//
17:20:06 <MaryJo> s/counter-example/example/
17:21:29 <MaryJo> s/Out of the Example 2 above/Out of the two numbered examples above/
17:21:46 <korn1> A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together.  The software that archives/encrypts the files or manages the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that software dis not providing non-fully functioning presentati[CUT]
17:22:42 <MaryJo> Above is proposed as a new note to go after the current Note 3.
17:23:46 <korn1> korn1 has joined #wcag2ict
17:23:56 <korn1> A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together
17:24:01 <korn1> The software that archives/encrypts those files or manages the contents of the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that software is not providing a non-fully functioning presentation of that content.
17:24:31 <Mike_P> +1
17:25:07 <korn1> "... is generally not a document..."
17:26:23 <greggvanderheiden> <begin definition>
17:26:23 <greggvanderheiden> document (as used in WCAG2ICT)
17:26:25 <greggvanderheiden>      assembly of content, such as a file, set of files, or streamed media THAT FUNCTIONS AS A SINGLE ITEM RATHER THAN A COLLECTION,  that is not part of software, and that does not include its own user agent
17:26:26 <greggvanderheiden>      Note 1: A document always requires a user agent to present its content to the user.
17:26:28 <greggvanderheiden>      Note 2: Letters, spreadsheets, emails, books, pictures, presentations, and movies are examples of documents.
17:26:29 <greggvanderheiden>      Note 3: Software configuration and storage files such as databases and virus definitions, as well as computer instruction files such as source code, batch/script files, and firmware, are examples of files that function as part of software and thus are not examples of documents. If and where software retrieves “information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user” from such files, it is just another part of the c[CUT]
17:26:31 <greggvanderheiden> that occurs in software and is covered by WCAG2ICT like any other parts of the software. Where such files contain one or more embedded documents, the embedded documents remain documents under this definition.
17:26:32 <greggvanderheiden>      Note 4: A collection of files zipped together into an archive, stored within a single virtual hard drive file, or stored in a single encrypted file system file, do not constitute a single document when so collected together.  The software that archives/encrypts those files or manages the contents of the virtual hard drive does not function as a user agent for the individually collected files in that collection because that softw[CUT]
17:26:34 <greggvanderheiden> not providing a non-fully functioning presentation of that content.
17:26:35 <greggvanderheiden>     Note 5: Anything that can present its own content without involving a user agent, such as a self playing book, is not a document but is software.
17:26:37 <greggvanderheiden>     Note 6: A single document may be composed of multiple files such as the video content, closed caption text, etc. This fact is not usually apparent to the end-user consuming the document / content. This is similar to how a single web page can be composed of content from multiple URIs (e.g. the page text, images, the JavaScript, a CSS file etc.).
17:26:38 <greggvanderheiden>      Example: An assembly of files that represented the video, audio, captions and timing files for a movie would be a document.
17:26:39 <greggvanderheiden>      CounterExample: A binder file used to bind together the various exhibits for a legal case would not be a document.
17:26:40 <greggvanderheiden> 
17:26:41 <greggvanderheiden> <end definition>
17:26:45 <David> q+
17:27:16 <greggvanderheiden> ack a
17:27:19 <greggvanderheiden> ack d
17:32:26 <korn1> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/final-edits-to-wcag2ict should now reflect our consent
17:32:39 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept revised resolution to LC-2821 with the revised definition for 'document'.
17:33:10 <MaryJo> LC-2822 - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq4
17:33:18 <MaryJo> Only minor editorial changes were proposed
17:35:23 <korn1> q+
17:36:55 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept LC-2822 as amended.
17:37:19 <MaryJo> LC-2823 conformance: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq6
17:38:32 <MaryJo> There was a suggested update to the proposed resolution to make the reference to the proposal made by Duff more clear.
17:41:44 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept proposed resolution to LC-2823 as amended.
17:43:40 <MaryJo> LC-2827 High level overview: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq8
17:44:42 <MaryJo> Shawn Henry had offered to help draft an overview that our task force can review and help with the contents.
17:45:12 <MaryJo> This should reuse information from our introduction, but make it a little more lightweight.
17:45:18 <greggvanderheiden> We do also have a web page on the WCAG2ICT document that will contain high level intro to the topic.
17:45:28 <greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have a web page on the WCAG2ICT document that will contain high level intro to the topic.
17:45:41 <David> typo in 2823 So we have said what we could in <add>a</add>way that others can usefully draw conclusions.
17:46:22 <greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have an overview page on the W3C WAI site that will contain high level intro to the WCAG2ICT.
17:46:54 <MaryJo> Then we can provide two links - one to the overview and one to the Note itself.
17:47:23 <David> I fixed the missing word noted above in 2823
17:47:54 <greggvanderheiden> Once completed we will have an overview page on the W3C WAI site that will contain a high level intro to the WCAG2ICT.
17:48:06 <MaryJo> We should tell Shawn yes, and fix the proposed resolution to reflect our actions to resolve the issue.
17:49:05 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept revised resolution to LC-2827.
17:49:37 <MaryJo> Editorial comments plus: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/55145/AugComments/results#xq9
17:51:31 <MaryJo> There were a few minor comments on the proposed changes, which are all acceptable.
17:51:38 <korn1> "... that arose..."
17:52:46 <korn1> Gregg: final sentence of 2nd para of cmd-line is: "Although there are far fewer new text applications being developed compared to new GUI or web applications, text applications remain in use today, and both text applications and the assistive technologies designed for text applications are in active development."
17:53:12 <MaryJo> Mary Jo's comment was: In addition, I don't think the 'For example,' is correct in change #8, as the first sentence is talking about custom UI components and the 2nd sentence is talking about standard components - not an example of custom components.
17:53:35 <MaryJo> Suggested to fix this is to remove 'For example'
17:53:45 <greggvanderheiden> a.	Note: This success criterion is primarily for software developers who develop or use custom user interface components. Standard user interface components on most accessibility-supported platforms already meet this success criterion when used according to specification.
17:54:31 <korn1> https://sites.google.com/site/wcag2ict/edits-for-michael-post-2nd-public-draft/final-edits-to-wcag2ict
17:56:31 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Accept the editorial updates as revised in the meeting.
17:58:01 <korn1> q+
17:58:21 <MaryJo> Discussion on whether or not to define 'non-web'
17:59:24 <MaryJo> WCAG is for the web, which is content you pull from a URI.
17:59:40 <Judy> q+
17:59:50 <MaryJo> So non-web would be the counter to that.
18:00:05 <Zakim> -Bruce_Bailey
18:00:51 <MaryJo> WCAG defines Web content - contents that are presented to a user via a user agent.
18:01:10 <greggvanderheiden> q+
18:01:20 <korn1> q-
18:02:29 <korn1> q+
18:03:04 <MaryJo> Web content is content that a Web user agent presents, so non-web content/documents/software is not presented to a user via a Web user agent.
18:04:50 <MaryJo> So it doesn't seem that a stand-alone definition of 'non-Web' is needed.
18:05:35 <Judy> q+
18:07:44 <korn1> q-
18:08:36 <Judy> ack j
18:08:38 <Judy> ack g
18:09:23 <MaryJo> RESOLUTION: Agree to submit WCAG2ICT for final publication.
18:11:02 <David> we can download the champagne on FTP
18:12:18 <Zakim> -[Microsoft]
18:12:27 <Zakim> -janina
18:12:30 <Zakim> -Shadi
18:12:31 <Zakim> -David_MacDonald
18:12:32 <Zakim> -??P0
18:12:43 <Judy> WAI will keep TF open until doc is published
18:13:02 <Judy> and until Shawn's Overview is completed
18:13:17 <Zakim> -Mary_Jo_Mueller
18:14:27 <MaryJo> zakim, bye
18:14:27 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees were Peter_Korn, Judy, Shadi, [Microsoft], Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, janina, David_MacDonald
18:14:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
18:14:37 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
18:14:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
18:15:05 <MaryJo> s/we can download the champagne on FTP//
18:19:50 <korn1> Zakim, who is here?
18:33:35 <korn1> korn1 has left #wcag2ict
19:35:34 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make log world
19:35:47 <MichaelC> rrsagent, make minutes
19:35:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html MichaelC
19:40:15 <MaryJo> chair:Mike_Pluke
19:43:37 <MaryJo> meeting:WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
19:43:46 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
19:43:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo
19:45:34 <MaryJo> Present:Peter_Korn, Judy, Shadi, Alex_Li, Mary_Jo_Mueller, Gregg_Vanderheiden, Bruce_Bailey, janina, David_MacDonald, Mike_Pluke
19:46:04 <MaryJo> s/Oh, right. This isn't our start time!//
19:46:16 <MaryJo> s/I'm still hearing static//
19:46:57 <MaryJo> s/a"//
19:48:06 <MaryJo> rrsagent, make minutes
19:48:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2013/08/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html MaryJo