<Rachael> WCAG 3 Categorization exercise follow up https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1t9H47G5gIUUSONx-Aly3UGCfQ7G0NI_V/
<Jaunita_George> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rpayaGqxZ4qguhWWhuLSPPUU6tew3ODZ/edit#slide=id.p1
<mbgower> i can do it
<mbgower> scribe: mbgower
Rachael: Do we have anyone who is new?
Chuck: I have a question
regarding the holiday week.
... Did we make a decision?
Rachael: We did not.
Rachael: We will send out
tomorrow if we're going to cancel next week.
... This is the introductory content
Jaunita: I'm going to be
presenting a protocols presentation. We can proceed with either
or both of these.
... Group was not able to reach consensus, and is presenting
two proposals. Groups names are arbitrary; just used to
differentiate.
... Links to comments in table in presentation
<alastairc> Protocols and Assertions Proposal: https://bit.ly/protocols_assertions
<Rachael> link to presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rpayaGqxZ4qguhWWhuLSPPUU6tew3ODZ/edit#slide=id.p1
Jaunita: Protocols and
Assertions. Teams proposal to include these at all levels of
conformance
... These reward (carrot approach). Must be avialable for
review.
... Must solve a real problem determined by AG members and
other experts.
... Proactive, not reactive.
... We should ensure protocols can't be gamed to pass a site
that does not meet minimums.
... content creator documents a statement. Examples
provided.
... Examples can be found in the US federal plain language
guidelines.
... Examples also found in Making Content Usable for People
with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities
... There was some concerns about using the latter as
examples.
... Other examples might include the alt text decision tree,
design documents, ePub
<Rachael> Evaluating Procedures Proposal: https://bit.ly/evaluating_procedures
Jaunita: Second proposal
... Protocols provide procedures to evaluate outcomes where
they cannot be necessarily measured.
... Some protocols written by w3c, but some provided
external
<bruce_bailey> Link from slide 8, Dutch Accessibility Statement generator: https://www.digitoegankelijk.nl/toegankelijkheidsverklaring/controle-door-logius
Jaunita: several requirements:
actionable steps, references outcome, describe requirements to
follow, evaluate how well protocol followed. Must be publicly
documented
... Set of things needed to be documented [slide 14]
<bruce_bailey> Link (1of2) from slide 9, US Federal plain language guidelines https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
<bruce_bailey> Link (2of2) from slide 9, Making Content Usable for People with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities objectives https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/
Jaunita: Example of Clear
Language [slide 15]
... Concern that organizations can write their own
protocols
<Rachael> Comparison Table: https://bit.ly/compare_the_two
Jaunita: Key differences to
similarly sounding proposals
... Definitions vary [slide 17]
... Diverged on who writes the protocol. [slide 18]
... Diverged on what is accepted as a protocol [slide 19]
... Diverged on how it fits into conformance
... Diverged on stringency of controls [ slide 21]
... Diverged on when protocol is applied [slide 22]
Rachael: This is a great chance to ask questions. We will write up a survey on these. This is a first pass.
Wilco: For these 2 proposals, are they mutually exclusive? Is there a hybrid solution?
<janina> +1 to Wilco
Jaunita: I wouldn't say they are excluding each other. They could fit together somehow. We haven't succeeded in a consensus proposal.
GreggVan: The thing about combining... [disrupted]
<Lauriat> Very helpful presentation, thank you for walking through all of this!
<alastairc> +1, very helpful
GreggVan: One of the things we
ran across in 2.x was thinking about Conformance statements
being part. Some companies said they won't be able to follow.
Any statement triggers ISO 9000 and 9001 statements lawyers
won't let them do.
... I like the first one better, since the second allows
companies to do them themselves. Which can be gamed.
<JF> we have not spoken to companies at this time
GreggVan: Have you talked with companies? Have these problems gone away?
Jaunita: First, both proposals
require public documentations -- if they are using to meet
conformance claims.
... There are strict requirements in the Evaluating
procedures... We are in a different environment. People
publishing VPATs. They have published information on programs.
There is still a risk.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to check my internal characterisation of each
rachael: As we move forward, we will need to confirm.
Alastair: I wanted to confirm my assumption. The Protocols/Assertions implies there is a separate list that is not necessarily integrated with the guidelines as such. The Evaluating procedures seems like it would be integrated. Is that right?
John Foliot: I don't know what you mean by a separate list. Anything that is a protocol would need to be vetted.
John Foliot: It's not just a random list, but a precise list pre-approved by the WG.
Alastair: To clarify, something like Coga Usable is a large document...
<alastairc> Alastair: Is it integrated with the outcomes/methods or separate?
<Lauriat> As things move forward with each of these, please do include me in the organization/stakeholder outreach? I see a lot of potential in both of these and look forward to digging into them and how they might work in practical cases.
Jaunita: Evaluating procedures allows use of protocols, but they must meet strict criteria. it should help refine subjective criteria. There would be a specific place for protocols for things that can't be evaluated in the same way
Chuck: I do understand that the opinions were exclusive to the proposals. I like certain things from each.
Jaunita: I can see that too.
<Zakim> Jennie, you wanted to ask about content usable as a process
Jennie: Great presentation. Three
questions.
... My understanding is that 'protocol' usually refers to an
order. Can you comment on how that would work with Content
usable.
... Does that mean that things that can't be tested as normal
would all be handled in Protocols?
<JF> Scoped statement Jennie
Jennie: In a goverment website, which could have many parts, would a protocol apply to a whole site, or just parts of it?
Jaunita: There were concerns about bringing the Coga document forward for that reason. There are things that can be added as methods and outcomes. Plain language is a much better example. Something that can't be necessarily measured under our current structure.
<Judy> [JudyB: Just noting a concern here about the range of potential ways that the protocol approach could be mis-used as assertions of conformance, given what I've heard so far about the approach. But I appreciate the work being done on to explore this approach, and the careful review that AGWG will provide.]
Jaunita: We have examples of how
people can assess their conformance with published
guides.
... Protocols and assertions would say 'we have adopted'. It
would apply to whatever part of the site they say it is applied
to.
Jennie: That helps a lot. Thanks.
Jaunita: On slide 2, there are links to both the proposals and the comparison table.
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to respond to Wilco
JF: A whole bunch of things I put
myself on to respond to.
... I don't see these as exclusive. They are using the term
'protocol' but are not necessarily about the same thing.
... To Jennie's point, when you go through Content Usable,
you'll find a set of outcomes. We have user stories that
explain that, but we don't get granular 'you must put a help
link at the bottom of the page'
... So anytime we introduced subjectivity, you're going to
introduce varied assessments.
... It's like a shift left idea. We want to get them thinking
early about these. Content Usable has a series of things to
think early. Where someone does this early, I want to reward
them.
... This is a way of making it worth their while to adopt.
<alastairc> I had a question about how the 1st proposal would be "pro-active", but I'll check the resources and ask at the survey stage if I can't work it out.
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about qualifying a protocol
JF: Have we asked companies about linked documents? No, but it's common for organizations to write and publish VPTAs. The Dutch have a conformance statement generator.
<JF> Yes!
Janina: I'm presuming that anyone's definition of a protocol won't be sufficient?
Jaunita: Under the protocols and assertions, yet. Under the other, not necessarily. It would need to be publicly available. But that wouldn't necesarily be vetted.
GreggVan: Everybody understands
that they never say they met anything?
... Both of these seem to assume scoring.
... Has anyone solved scoring? I'm not sure how they progress.
The telecom industry tried to use process, and found nothing
changed.
<ShawnT> JF, I'd like to know more about the conformance statement generator?
GreggVan: They switched to outcome oriented. "Additive" versus "subtractive" suggests scoring. I suggest a tripod: if you don't have all 3 legs, the thing falls over.
<JF> @Shawn - the URL is in the PPT deck, and/but check with Jake too, as he brought it to the larger group
Jaunita: Both proposals note that the scoring model hasn't been done.
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say everyone does understand that VPATs do not ever say that the company has conformed or met any requirement. they were carefully crafted so that
Jaunita: One would have a placeholder, the other would be more integrated in the conformance claim.
Rachael: We will continue this conversation.
JF: Subteam calls meet on Friday, alternating times. Please join if interested. Reach out to me or Jaunita.
Rachael: We took time to work
through some categorization work. I wanted to thank people who
took the time to move some of this work forward.
... Did anyone have any comments?
<janina> Sorry, hit the wrong button and disconnected myself!
mbgower: the functional needs and user needs take a lot of time. It would be good to find out if that can be lighter.
<Rachael> mbgower: functional needs and user needs are a heavy lift
<Detlev> +1 to Mike - that was my perception as well when I took part
<janina> I'll follow up in email.
bruce_bailey: I had trouble distinguishing between user needs and functional needs. I would like to see an example of one that is complete. I don't think any are yet.
<JF> +1 to Bruce
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on the user/functional needs in this exercise.
Alastair: To comment to Mike, it is a long and granular list for the Needs. For the purpose of these exercise, pick the most common and try to move through the next phase. Break up the current SC if needed.
JF: I have a real concern with the process right now. As part of the template we have 4 test types. One is protocols, which we described for the last 40 minutes. It seems difficult.
<bruce_bailey> i think "complete" means "complete enough for now" -- which is okay
JF: The one I looked at was primarily the one Bruce looked at as well. Captions.
<alastairc> I don't think any of the WCAG 2.2 SCs will have protocols
JF: I am looking at the template. My concern is more abstract.
Rachael: Janina maybe type in
your questions, if you can't speak
... I do want to note that half the paricipants chose not to
participate.
... It creates two distincts groups: one who contributes, and
the other who is just critiquing.
... We are as a group pivoting to WCAG 3. It is going to be
turning more to exercises, to help us understand
processes.
... We want increased involvement. We recognize day job
limitations and personal challenges. Keeping that in mind, the
chairs will be tracking participation.
... We are at a point where we really encourage full
participation so we can get through exercises.
Jennie: I'm wondering if part of
the challenge is the way things are discussed.
... When I have limited amounts of time to review email, i need
time to digest information before participating.
<ShawnT> +1 to Jennie
Jennie: So I need to find the activity and go through it. Would you be open to having discussions with some who would like to participate more?
<Jaunita_George> +1
Rachael: We would love to have those meetings. We welcome suggestions. Please email the chairs. We sincerely want to improve things. We welcome suggestions.
Jaunita: I was thinking some concrete participation minimums would help set expectations
Rachael: I believe there is a set commitment of 8 hours a week.
Alastair: I believe so. I think the minimum is outlined in the invited experts.
<Jennie> +1 to mbgower
<Chuck> I thought it was 4, we'll take action
Rachael: We'll take an
action
... We are continuing to move to WCAG 3. We're setting up 3-6
person subgroups.
... The goal is to generate content. If a particular problem
needs more effort, we will set up a task force.
<Jaunita_George> +1000!!
Rachael: The planning team will be creating milestones. We are moving to a goal of subgroups that last 8 weeks and then report back.
<Rachael> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_caRiZaTQDmsd2Vq415sz4AIullNse-GeGtohUfg_5M/edit#
Rachael: Wilco has created a
guide, which he will go over next week.
... We are in the process of doing Issue Severity and __
groups.
... An 8-week sprint will focus around a single question or
deliverable.
... Please take time to review this handbook (linked above)
<Jaunita_George> Scribe: Jaunita
<Chuck> THANK YOU Juanita!
<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to facilitate scribe change
<alastairc> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: *introduces agenda topic*
<Rachael> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2420/files
<alastairc> For components which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously), if this perimeter is smaller.
<Jaunita_George> ...We've started to come to a slightly better solution which is explained in the PR Rachael pasted in
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: We have some who agree and some who agree with comments *reads survey*
<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
<Jaunita_George> ...Anyone who agrees with the update have anything to add?
<Jaunita_George> ...*Reads the "agrees with adjustments" responses
For links which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously).
<alastairc> "For components which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line (contiguously), if this perimeter would be smaller."
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: This is very specifically written to links. I rewrote it and trimmed it down some
For links which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the link would appear on a single line (contiguously).
<bruce_bailey> +1 if we can use "link" rather than component -- plain language
<alastairc> +1
<Jaunita_George> +1
<Wilco> -1 to "link"
<kirkwood> should it be linked text?
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: +1 or -1 to mbgower
<JF> +1 to component
<ShawnT> +1 to component
<joweismantel> +1
<alastairc> Is there a non-link that this would apply to?
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say can anyone explain why component?
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Link text or component question?
<Rachael> Link, linked text, or component
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: Could you give me an example where component would take place?
<kirkwood> +1 to Mike . think component adds confusion
<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to explain "component"
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: If anyone has an example please go on queue
<alastairc> How about "For components (such as links) which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line."
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask about phrasing as exception
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: If we use link, I'm worried it will cause confusion because the rest of the SC mentions components. Consistency is more important and we can provide explanation in the Understanding document
<Jaunita_George> bruce_bailey: Can we provide an exception?
+1
<Wilco> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<alastairc> For components (such as links) which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line.
<Jaunita_George> +1
<bruce_bailey> +1
<JF> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<bruce_bailey> nice to get word "link" into the SC prose, thank you
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: The other way you could phrase it as links or other components
<Jaunita_George> JF: As much as I favor the use of component, the only thing that would wrap around lines is a text link
<Jaunita_George> ...I'm rethinking my point because only links will apply
<alastairc> For components (such as links) which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line.
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: I do see your point. I'm just thinking that even if we can't think of it at the moment, that it may still exist so we want the flexibility to cover all possible cases
<JF> Wilco had also suggested "links and other components"
<Chuck> For components (such as links) which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text, the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: *Reads new language*
<Jaunita_George> bruce_bailey: I agree in principle but feel that link belongs further down that sentence
<Jaunita_George> +1
<kirkwood> +1 to Bruce i think we should use “text link”
<Wilco> +1
<Chuck> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<alastairc> +1
<kirkwood> +1
+1 I can live with and will wordsmith
<Chuck> For components which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text (such has hypertext links), the perimeter can be established based on how the component would appear on a single line.
<JF> Reserving decision until we see the final word-smithed language
<Jaunita_George> kirkwood: Let's just call it a text link
<ShawnT> +1
<Jaunita_George> Any objections to the revised writing?
For hypertext links and other components that wrap onto...
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: I don't think we should call it text links. We're calling it inline content, which may include images shown inline with the text.
<Wilco> Prefer "links"
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to sau For links and other components that wrap onto...
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: I can take the input that's here and make revisions. It will be easy to see in it's final form in the CFC
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Any other concerns?
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: So we have a CFC out and folks had a few questions. I thought would be worth talking through a few questions to clear up any confusion.
<alastairc> There is a user-need based on people referencing page numbers and there are scenarios where people with disabilities cannot navigate to those pages. We have heard this from everyone with experience in education (and gov).
<alastairc> Other navigation mechanisms can be useful, or more useful, such as tables of contents. However, they do not prevent teachers or book-clubs referencing page numbers. We also don't have evidence that they are cause issues that are not caught by other SCs.
<Jaunita_George> ...we're not solving the problem of Tables of Contents
<alastairc> We could not scope the SC to non-web versions of content, they are out of our scope.
<alastairc> We could not find a way to expand the scope without going into places where we were not sure they would provide benefit.
<alastairc> For example, online word processors seem to be dropping pages as a concept, at least for navigation. Outside the EPUB examples, we are not sure that is a problem because no-one can refer to or navigate by page number.
<alastairc> The scoping is to when there are referenceable targets that have been added by the author (or authoring tool/workflow). If those are included, then a mechanism to navigate to them must be included. It could be a listing of pages, or a text-input & jump to, or something else.
<alastairc> When published as an EPUB (i.e. zip file) and opened in an EPUB reader, the user-agent is the 'mechanism' and passes the SC.
<alastairc> When published as a PDF, it probably doesn't have recognisable page-break-locators, but also the reader provides the mechanism.
<Wilco> Not all PDF readers have page navigation, Gmail's PDF previewer for example
<alastairc> When the same source document as the EPUB is published for browsers it lacks the jump-to-page feature, and that feature is not expected to be implemented. (But if it were, then the SC would be fulfilled.)
<Jaunita_George> mgarrish: It's not isolated to EPUB, but EPUB may be the largest use case
<Jaunita_George> AvneeshSingh: I would say the difference between offline/online documents is getting larger
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to note that more than ePUB can support ARIA (role="doc-pagebreak")
<alastairc> Yep, we are saying that EPUBs are being published as web pages...
<Jaunita_George> JF: We need to think about this beyond web browsers
<AvneeshSingh> correction: the difference between offline/online documents is getting blur
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask AlastairC about "outside of epub" context does not seem to be a problem?
<Jaunita_George> ...the SC is really critical in its constrained use case
<Jaunita_George> bruce_bailey: I think I heard you say it was constrained to EPUBs, but I see a use case for PDFs
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: It's not constrained to EPUBs, but I think we've discussed the PDF use case, but I don't think we can use this SC to address that
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say this seems to be a platform issue
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: This has been a difficult SC and many people have had challenges to it. Are we solving enough of those challenges to make a SC out of this?
<MelanieP> +1 to Michael Gower - this is a user agent issue to solve
<Jaunita_George> ...This is could be a user agent problem to solve
<Jaunita_George> ...In some ways is the mechanism something the authors have to solve or are there alternatives?
<Jaunita_George> ...there's a lot of testing challenges as well
<Jaunita_George> mgarrish: I wanted to clarify. The author has to provide the page numbers.
<JF> +1 to Matt
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to speak to user-agent issue.
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: On the user agent side, the problem we want to tackle is that major publishers are reusing their EPUBs and putting them on the web. It's a reasonably focused scenario but it solves a big problem.
<Jaunita_George> ...About testing -- we did try to make the definition such that it would be fairly straightforward
<alastairc> From the understanding doc: "For a Page Break Locator to be a "programmatically determinable destination marker", it needs to have a role that identifies it as a page break, and a method of determining which page in a sequence it represents. This Criterion applies to pages which include elements with the doc-pagebreak semantic role and an associated ID attribute."
<alastairc> Also, in the reflowed documents you probably don't have the page numbers visible.
<Jaunita_George> JF: We have the aria attribute that was made for this. There are other requirements as well. And we have to think about third party readers as well. Reading systems will have to add their own pagination, which will make the experience inconsistent across platforms.
<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i was feeling like this SC is a way to encourage EPUB use -- but now it seems like a penalty
<Jaunita_George> ...I don't think we'll have scope creep, because it's already constrained
<Wilco> +100
<Jaunita_George> bruce_bailey: This is now a punishment for using EPUB
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: This is how I'm looking at it too. It's too constrained, yet too expansive in some ways.
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: Why do we want this only on EPUB
<Jaunita_George> ...It's too broad because it's asking content authors to put page breaks on everything -- even a one-page document
<Zakim> JF, you wanted to ask about shifting from "epub" to "when using ARIA role="doc-pagebreak"..."
<Jaunita_George> JF: I don't we're saying that a one page document has to have page breaks. We should use the ARIA role.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to talk to constraint
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: I'm trying to understand Wilco's point
<JF> +1 Alastair
<Jaunita_George> ...the current SC has a pretty well-defined scope
<Jaunita_George> mgarrish: I agree with John. If we scoped it to doc-pagebreak that wouldn't be an issue.
<Jaunita_George> Rachael: Should we change the wording to scope this to EPUB?
<Wilco> no
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: If we changed the scope to EPUB, would it overcome the objections?
<bruce_bailey> -1 to scoping to EPUB only
<JF> -1 to scoping to EPUB only
<Jaunita_George> GeorgeK: The online versions are being widely used and referenced by students and researchers and those locators are essential for citations. We're in discussions with the journal people about providing a navigation mechanism to get to the particular page. This is a good use case outside of EPUB and I foresee that being a fix for the future. Long term this is appropriate for a lot of different situations.
<alastairc> We discussed word processors a few weeks ago, they don't do page breaks in the same way
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask what the negative impact of the current scope is
<Jaunita_George> Wilco: What I'm struggling is that a lot of things already have page breaks. I'm not understanding for things that don't automatically do this why they would benefit uniquely for in-page navigation?
<Wilco> The answer was; because that's how we defined it
<Wilco> yes, small documents
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: Is the concern that it's not wide enough or that it catches things it shouldn't?
<Jaunita_George> GeorgeK: From a Word document perspective, I'd never see this coming in by default.
<Jaunita_George> ...this would probably be an optional feature in those cases.
<JF> +1 to Matt
<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say is a variant on Consistent Navigation a way to get this?
<Jaunita_George> mbgower: I haven't voted against it, but wanted to see about our paths forward for this. If we had a role, we'd need to meet 4.1.2. Maybe consistent navigation is more appropriate?
<JF> continue discussion
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: The problem is that we're on the last call for WCAG 2.2 things
<Jaunita_George> alastairc: Happy to discuss after this call
<Wilco> nope, still on the -1
<Jaunita_George> Chuck: Anybody who did not support the CfC feel that there have been any ideas that they heard would change their position?
<Wilco> I would feel a lot better if this had a minimum page constraint
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/Clean/Clear/ Succeeded: s/conformance statement/conformance requirement/ Default Present: janina, Rachael, Chuck, Jaunita_George, jeanne, ShawnT, alastairc, Lauriat, bruce_bailey, JakeAbma, joweismantel, JF, Wilco, ToddL, Makoto, Peter_Bossley, kirkwood, maryjom, Azlan, mbgower, sarahhorton, Jennie, shadi, Nicaise, GreggVan, Detlev, SuzanneTaylor, Francis_Storr, MelanieP, GeorgeK, mgarrish Present: janina, Rachael, Chuck, Jaunita_George, jeanne, ShawnT, alastairc, Lauriat, bruce_bailey, JakeAbma, joweismantel, JF, Wilco, ToddL, Makoto, Peter_Bossley, kirkwood, maryjom, Azlan, mbgower, sarahhorton, Jennie, shadi, Nicaise, GreggVan, Detlev, SuzanneTaylor, Francis_Storr, MelanieP, GeorgeK, mgarrish Regrets: Alastair G Found Scribe: mbgower Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower Found Scribe: Jaunita Scribes: mbgower, Jaunita 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: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]