<laura> Scribe: Laura_Carlson

New members and topics

<laura> RM: Any new members?

<laura> (none)

Announcements

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> Who can make next Tuesday's meeting?

<bruce_bailey> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<laura> Bruce: are we taking off tuesday?

<Rachael> +1

<mbgower> +1

<garcialo1> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<shadi> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<JustineP> +1

<daniel-montalvo> +1

<laura> RM: +1 if you can make it.

<alastairc> +1, I assume there's a Us holiday on monday?

<LoriO> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Wilco> +1

<laura> laura: +1

<laura> RM: yes we will meet next Tuesday.

Conformance subgroup report (2-5 minutes)

<laura> Shadi: suggest topic be retitled as there has been some confusion.

<shadi> https://github.com/w3c/silver/wiki/Guidance-for-policy-makers-Subgroup

Guidance for policy makers Subgroup

<laura> Shadi: miss some participants this week but had new joiners.

<laura> ... fairly large group.

<laura> ... covered background and first use case.

<laura> ... group is still forming.

<laura> ... minutes are linked.. Our work is supplementary to WCAG

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

Does Target Size (Minimum) result in widespread failure of common dataviz? #3091

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3091

<Rachael> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3188/files

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/results#xq42

<laura> alastairc: based on question from Scott

<laura> ... n whether Target Size Min would fail common data visualization approaches.

<laura> The thread came to: Not where they are 'essential'.

<laura> ... Bruce created PR 3188 to include that aspect.

<laura> RM: reads survey comments.

<laura> ... Gundula's seems like a separate PR.

<Rachael> "limitations to fine motor input".

<laura> Bruce: think pr has the proper phrasing.

<laura> mg: If we customize for every beneficiary it will become much longer.

<Detlev> +1 ti MichaelG

<laura> ... It is a slippery slope.

<laura> alastairc: suggest it is a separate thing. Make it a separate issue.

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3188 without change to limited motor control , create issues for zoom recommendation and one to discuss all functional needs

<laura> Bruce: wonder if there is one other edit I was trying to sneak in.

<laura> alastairc: It is on line 51

<laura> mg: do we have a tech for resizing?

<laura> alastairc: I don't think so. Treat it as a separate issue.

<Rachael> Draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3188 without change to limited motor control, create issues for 1) zoom recommendation and 2) one to discuss all functional needs across all issues in WCAG 2.2

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Detlev> +1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> laura: +1

<ShawnT> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<garcialo1> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<LoriO> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Wilco> +1

<mbgower> +.5 I'm not sure what the second functional needs item is about

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3188 without change to limited motor control, create issues for 1) zoom recommendation and 2) one to discuss all functional needs across all issues in WCAG 2.2

Accessible authentication - consider other phrase than one time password #3180

<bruce_bailey> for the "in brief" portion of Understanding

<mbgower> Okay, it'll come up in the In Brief things in the future, that's fine

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3185

<laura> alastairc: In a previous discussion we thought more work was needed on password / passcode / verification code used in Accessible Authentication.

<laura> ... Michael Gower opened issue 3180 to capture that. Michael also created PR 3185 to make updates.

<laura> ... Patrick added a few small comments on the PR itself

<laura> alastairc: MG may want to rebut.

<laura> mg: we could go back an add it. But it seems a bit weird. Could tweak it in later.

<laura> lori: The Friday group thought it was good to go.

<laura> ... PL's edits need to be in there.

<laura> mg: it is not in there currently.

<laura> ... it is easy to update it later.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3185 without Patrick's suggested edits, readdress additional edits outside of meeting

<mbgower> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3185 without Patrick's suggested edits, readdress additional edits outside of meeting as a new issue

<LoriO> +1

<laura> laura: +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Raf> +1

<garcialo1> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Makoto> +1

<alastairc> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3185 without Patrick's suggested edits, readdress additional edits outside of meeting as a new issue.

Focus Not Obscured (Enhanced) should permit opaque overlays #3193

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3193

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3194/files

<laura> alastairc: From a previous discussion Bruce raised Issue 3193 on Focus Not obscured.

<bruce_bailey> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3195/files

<laura> ... Bruce has a proposal for review in PR 3194

<laura> Bruce: one on screen has the light box addition.

<laura> alastairc PR 3194 looks more substantial.

<laura> ... PR 3195 maybe was the one intended.

<laura> RM: do we need to revisit?

<laura> mg: include a couple of failure techniques. Need some trivial modifications.

<mbgower> I would leave it in.

<laura> wilco: not 100% sure if I am correct.

<laura> dan: user interface component must not be hidden and not the focus ring.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTiON: Merge PR 3194 and PR 3195 and circulate by email for 2nd review

<laura> ac: don't think it is problematic.

<laura> mg: one change to failure. It is not actually a failure. Needs some tweaking.

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> i agree failure is placeholder

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTiON: Merge PR 3194 and PR 3195 with edits discussed in meeting and circulate by email for 2nd review

<ShawnT> +1

<mbgower> +1

<garcialo1> +1

<laura> laura: +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Makoto> +1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<Detlev> +1

RESOLUTION: Merge PR 3194 and PR 3195 with edits discussed in meeting and circulate by email for 2nd review.

WCAG 2.x backlog issues https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results

Clarification on 3.1.2 Language of Parts #297

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/297

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/287

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1174

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/808/files

<laura> alastairc: In issue 297 Glenda was looking for clarification oon whether "language of the parts" included single words. Similar questions are asked in issue 1174 and issue 287.

<laura> ... some comments around about it not being single words.

<laura> ... phrases can include single words.

<laura> ... maybe include it in a slightly differnt way.

<laura> RM: reads comments.

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say individual words are not exempt

<AWK> +AWK

<laura> mg: words like this get put in italics.

<laura> ... we are not making a normative change here.

<Rachael> The human language of each passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined except for proper names, technical terms, words of indeterminate language, and words or phrases that have become part of the vernacular of the immediately surrounding text.

<laura> RM: agree with MG.

<laura> dan: disagree with that.

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say "some words"?

<laura> ac: A phrase can be a word.

<mbgower> bingo

<laura> ... "some words" are included.

<Chuck> +1 with alastair's interpretations

<AWK> +1 to a phrase can be an individual word

<Rachael> +1 to a phrase can be an individual word

<laura> wilco: have had conversations where someone thinks every word needs to be marked up.

<laura> corey: calling it out in the understanding doc may encourage over reporting.

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to mention exception "words or phrases that have become part of the vernacular of the immediately surrounding text" has subjectivity

<garcialo1> +1 to Wilco

<AWK> Seems like we need to focus in on the "words or phrases that have become part of the vernacular of the immediately surrounding text" part of the SC

<laura> bruce: +1 to corey and wilco. It is subjective.

<alastairc> Suggested update: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that user agents can correctly present phrases, passages or some words written in multiple languages."

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask wilco a question

<laura> ... screen reader support has improved.

<AWK> maybe increasing the prominence of "single words should be considered part of the language of the surrounding text unless it is clear that a change in language was intended" in the understanding doc

<laura> rm: require words has already been decided.

<laura> wilco: word in a different langauge in a sentence shouldn't be required.

<laura> mg: this SC has existed for a couple of decades.

<kirkwood> +1

<laura> ... only change i s in the understanding doc.

<laura> ... don't think this change will open up the flood gates.

<laura> raf: agree with wilco.

<Makoto> +1 to a phrase can be an individual word. Especially a word written in different language only if it doesn't make sense without being pronounced correctly, such as the name of a language.

<laura> awk :Understanding doc speaks to this already. since 1999: "4.1 Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions).

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggest way forward

<laura> ... not a big problem.

<alastairc> Probably better with an 'and': "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that user agents can correctly present phrases, passages and some words written in multiple languages."

<laura> rm: suggest a straw poll.

<Rachael> Straw poll: 1) keep “words, phrases, or passages” 2) remove words so it says “phrases and passages”3) keep "content"

<Jaunita_George> 1

<dan_bjorge> 2 or 3

<Rachael> Straw poll: 1) “words, phrases, or passages” 2) “phrases and passages”3) "content"

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if we should look at change to intent separately from other edit to Understanding ?

<Chuck> 3, but not opposed to any

<alastairc> 4 - "some words"

<corey_hinshaw> option 2 or 3

<mbgower> 1 or 3, I think 2 adds no clarity

<laura> bruce: voting on this is good.

<garcialo1> 3 or 2

<bruce_bailey> option 1

<GreggVan> 3 can live with 2 but leaving a word out indicates something

<kirkwood> 1

<AWK> 3, 1

<Raf> 3

<ShawnT> 1

<Detlev> 1 or 3

<Chuck> seems to be a split between 1 and 3.

<laura> gregg: we had a long discussion on this. We need to think in other languages.

<bruce_bailey> proposed line 16 change seems uncontroversial, and it is more plain language than "content"

<bruce_bailey> it tracks to SC phrasing

<mbgower> except that phrases includes words :)

<Jaunita_George> Well also you have to understand that borrowed words are often pronounced according to the rules of the language that's using them, like with borrowed words that are used in French or Japanese

<laura> ... if you don't say words implies it doesn't need to be marked up.

<laura> chuck: leaning 3.

<mbgower> LOL

<garcialo1> hah

<alastairc> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that user agents can correctly present phrases, passages and some words written in multiple languages."

<laura> ... circumstance exist both ways

<corey_hinshaw> "certain words"?

<bruce_bailey> +1 for some words

<laura> ac: "some words" may over it.

<mbgower> +1

<AWK> This is also something where assistive technologies can or should be able to adjust to user preferences. Even if individual words are marked up with language user tools can speak that content in just the primary language of the user.

<laura> ben: chuck articulated a good point.

<GreggVan> + to say "can't say 'some words' unless you specify which words or you make it not testable.

<mbgower> "certain words" is better than "some words"

<ShawnT> resume versus resumé

<laura> ... some words are important some aren't important.

<Ben_Tillyer> Thanks Shawn

<laura> JG: number of words are normally pronounced in the target languages.

<mbgower> question

<laura> ... so you couldn't mark them up.

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to say "can't say 'some words' unless you specify which words

<Ben_Tillyer> The first answer (from Ian McIntosh) on this Quora question has many words that are spelled the same in English and French but have totally different meanings https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-words-that-are-written-the-same-in-French-and-English-but-have-a-different-meaning-in-each-language

<ShawnT> I deal with this all the time. Working in both French and English all day and depending on a text to speech to retain the information I read.

<mbgower> it's an understanding document, not a technique

<laura> Gregg: what a mess we create when we to get into fine details.

<Ben_Tillyer> +1 to Wilco

<Jaunita_George> Examples: アイス, アイスクリーム (aisu kurīmu) ice cream and pull (sweater)

<garcialo1> +1 to adding examples

<laura> wilco: suggest adding examples for not marking them up.

<Rachael> 1) Accept PR 808 with change to "phrases, passages, and certain words", create a new issue to add more clarification to understanding about what "Certain words" means. OR 2) Accept PR 808 but leave "content"

<bruce_bailey> +1 to examples for when markup not needed

<Ben_Tillyer> 1

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say where we specify that.

<garcialo1> 1

<mbgower> 2 would be reject PR then

<ShawnT> 1

<laura> ac: this is in the understanding doc.

<laura> ... people are asking about individual words.

<mbgower> 1

<corey_hinshaw> Support either option, but lean toward option 2 as being simpler

<bruce_bailey> 2 -- leave as "content" because words following "multiple languages" is also not entirely on point

<alastairc> 1, can live with 2

<laura> ... we trying to answer the question that was asked

<bruce_bailey> code example seems none controversial

<Raf> 2

<mbgower> btw, Alastair, Oxford comma

<laura> Lori: we need to note what people have asked.

<AWK> 2

<bruce_bailey> @lori have you thought what that should look like ?

<laura> ... speakers of other languages need to weigh in on this.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 808 without change to "content". Create issue to change to "phrases, passages, and certain words"

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 808 without change to "content". Create issue to change to "phrases, passages, and certain words" and add examples

<Jaunita_George> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<LoriO> +1

<mbgower> 0 I'd rather just ditch this. Someone who feels strongly can make a separate issue if they want

<laura> wilco: not sure that it changes the issue. It is kicking the can down the road.

<alastairc> +0.5, I'd rather just go with majority on "content" vs "phrases, passages, and certain words".

<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest " Note that the purpose of this is to make sure that words are pronounced correctly when read aloud. So this should apply to phrases, passages,

<laura> bruce: example is multiple languages. thinks we should leave the intent alone.

<laura> laura: Scribe change?

<bruce_bailey> +1 to gregg's broader explanation of intent

<laura> gregg: need a broader explanation of intent.

<mbgower> give me 2 minutes and I can do it

<dan_bjorge> I can scribe

<Rachael> scribe: dan_bjorge

<Chuck> thanks Laura!

<laura> Scribe list: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Scribe_List

Rachel: So, this issue can be left open. Alastair, would you prefer to keep open or make a new one for this conversation?

<mbgower> scribe: mbgower

<dan_bjorge> Alastair: Would prefer to just get this closed even if we don't get the change in. Let's go with simple majority of "keep it as content" or "update to certain words"

Alastair: The next sentence does cover the point Greg was making.

<dan_bjorge> Alastair: In context, don't think it would make too much difference, it's explained further in following sentence anyway

Alastair: let's leave the topic alone or make the sentence to be "phrase, passages, or certain words"

<GreggVan> it was to add or replace text -- just words offered to chairs / editors to help clarify

<alastairc> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that user agents can correctly present phrases, passages and even certain words written in multiple languages."

Chuck: Leaving this open is an option

<Rachael> Final straw poll: 1) add code example and keep "content" and close issue 2) add code example, change content to "phrases, passages, and certain words" and close issue. Open seperate issue for examples

<AWK> 1

<Chuck> 1, not opposed to 2

<Rachael> 2

<Wilco> 3? I don't think? I don't think we've addressed the issue

2 preferred, 1 fine

<alastairc> 2, can live with 1

<Raf> 1

<ShawnT> 2

<dan_bjorge> 1, can live with either

<GreggVan> 2 but ok with 1

<bruce_bailey> 1

<corey_hinshaw> 1, ok with 2

<Detlev> 2

<Makoto> 2

<AWK> (I'd be more open to 2 if it was "phrases, passages, and in some cases, words")

<joweismantel> 2 ok with 1

<LoriO> 2

<Chuck> 6, 9

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say closing the issue and not making the change is a valid resolution, as long as we call that out in the issue.

<laura> 2, can live with either

<Detlev> like AWKs rephrasing

Chuck: 2 has a simple majority

<Chuck> 6, 10

<bruce_bailey> +1 that "certain" is a bit strong

AWK: That suggests there is variability based on situation

<Raf> I like "in some cases..."

<Chuck> +1 "or in some cases"

<corey_hinshaw> Like that wording as well.

<bruce_bailey> +1 to AWK

Rachael: Is there any support for "in some cases"?

<Jaunita_George> I'm fine with either

<Makoto> +1 to AWK

Alastair: I would prefer to "content". Does it change anyone's mind who voted to keep content?

<dan_bjorge> Still prefer content, still fine with either

<bruce_bailey> i was a (1) but (2) is now better

<Chuck> +1 moving forward with AWK's suggestion

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: add code example, change content to "phrases, passages, and in some cases, words" and close issue. Open seperate issue for examples

+1

<ShawnT> +1

<Detlev> ]1

<Jaunita_George> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Detlev> ]1

<AWK> +1

<Raf> +1

<alastairc> +1

<laura> +1

<Wilco> 0

<Makoto> +1

<Chuck> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<LoriO> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<Detlev> ]1

<GreggVan> +1 !

<Detlev> *!!!

plus or minus, detlev?

<Detlev> FINE pLUSSING ALL THE TIME

RESOLUTION: add code example, change content to "phrases, passages, and in some cases, words" and close issue. Open separate issue for examples

2.2.6: Timeouts - reference to compliance #421

<garcialo1> +1 on ] closer to +

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/421

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/501/files

<GreggVan> on which keyboard?

<bruce_bailey> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag2x-backlog1/results#xq6

Alastair: Another old issue... They asked for a normative change, so we suggested an understanding change

<bruce_bailey> 9 yeah and 1 "something else"

<alastairc> Suggestions welcome...

Corey: As a person in the US, it makes sense to me. If there were other similar things we could add, it might make it more inclusive.

<laura> s/and add /and add /

Dan: I thought PCIDSS was the name of the compliance standard. Can anyone confirm?

<Rachael> points of conversation: Is there a non-US example we can add? Should this be in the note instead?

Dan: DSS - Data Security Standards, I think?

<Wilco> Prefer understanding

<Jaunita_George> +1 to wilco

Rachael: Does anyone have an opinion on the note versus understanding?

<GreggVan> understanding

<Wilco> no, it's an errata

<dan_bjorge> understanding is fine, this doesn't need an errata

<dan_bjorge> imo

<Chuck> -1 on note

<corey_hinshaw> Prefer understanding.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR 501. If someone finds a non-us example, please create new PR

<Jaunita_George> +1'

+1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<laura> +1

<Wilco> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Francis_Storr> +1

<joweismantel> +1

<Chuck> +1

<alastairc> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<Makoto> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 501. If someone finds a non-US example, please create new PR

<garcialo1> +1

<GreggVan> +1 or ]1 whichever is the new standard

<ShawnT> +1

<corey_hinshaw> [][[]]][[[][[][[[1

What is part of accname for Label in Name? #2302 #2276

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2276

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2302

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2725/files

Alastair: this pointed out some edge cases or addition for screen reader users that might make some incidental failures

<Chuck> mbgower: I did it a while ago. There is a section on punctuation, I think there's changes to the mathematical section...

<Chuck> ... there was the addition on parenthetical and says that if looking at something in parenthesis you would say that. As long as the info in the label is captured as part of the name or description...

<Chuck> ...if not part of the accessible name, ok to exclude.

<Chuck> ...updates G201 on using a general label. Clarifies that if someone adds punctuation or parenthesis, it's allowed in the test.

<laura> s/different language /different language /

<scribe> scribe: mbgower

Wilco: i think it is phrased much too strongly

Detlev: People could think they need to include a bunch of things in the accessible name, which are never spoken
... I think this covers the programmatic need

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say it's important to not exclude

Chuck: Are you saying to exclude it, Mike?
... the programmatic accessible name needs to have that information

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask Wilco: What about a form that has "Email (work)" and "Email (personal)"?

<alastairc> "parenthetical text may be optionally considered a description and left out of the accessible name."

Bruce: My understanding is that the programmatic accessible name is for speech input

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2725 but soften language so that parentheses are not required to be included or excluded.

Alastair: I was taking Wilco's point that it might be phrased a bit strongly

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2725 but soften language so that parentheses are not required to be included or excluded and send for review via email

<Wilco> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3186

Wilco: This is another issue that came up in ACT

<Chuck> scribe+ Chuck

<Detlev> Something like "where the secondary text is needed to differentiate or understand the label it must be part of the accname"

<Chuck> mbgower: It would be useful for me if you identify what exactly the wording is. Otherwise it's hard to change.

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Continue to work on PR #2725 with Wilco and ACT's input

<bruce_bailey> +1 for clarifying via example

<alastairc> +1

+1

<Wilco> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Detlev> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<dan_bjorge> +1

<laura> +1

<ChrisLoiselle> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<Raf> +1

<garcialo1> +1

RESOLUTION: Continue to work on PR #2725 with Wilco and ACT's input

Focus being set to the first interactive element in a dialog #2241

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2241

<Rachael> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2306/files

Alastair: One of the examples in Focus Order says the first interactive item must be focused. We thought that is not quite right. It could be on the dialog or something inside the dialog

Francis: The HTML spec forbids putting the focus on the dialog

Wilco: Does that hold up for ARIA models as well?

<Rachael> draft RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2306, leave suggested change out

<Chuck> +1

+1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<laura> +1

<Detlev> +1

<Makoto> +1

<corey_hinshaw> +1

Rachael: We are past the 90 minute target.

RESOLUTION: Accept PR #2306, leave suggested change out

+1 Wilco!!

<LoriO> how do we bring up the language issue? create an issue

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/thing we shouls leave the intent alone/thinks we should leave the intent alone/
Succeeded: s/suugest /suggest /
Succeeded: s/buthad/but had/
Succeeded: s/firest /first /
Succeeded: s/minuts /minutes /
Succeeded: s/Suplimentary /Our work is suplimentary /
Succeeded: s/n whether /on whether /
Succeeded: s/visualisation /visualization /
Succeeded: s/customise for every benficary /customize  for every beneficiary /
Succeeded: s/Teatt it as a separtte /Teatsit as a separate /
Succeeded: s/Teatsit /Treat it /
Succeeded: s/funcitonal /functional /
FAILED: s/an add  /and add  /
Succeeded: s/friday /The Friday /
Succeeded: s/wierd/weird/
Succeeded: s/it it /it is /
Succeeded: s/looke /looks /
Succeeded: s/revist/revisit/
Succeeded: s/non-us/non-US/
Succeeded: s/acutally/actually/
Succeeded: s/differnt /different /
Succeeded: s/itaclics/italics/
Succeeded: s/aggree /agree /
Succeeded: s/conversattions /conversations /
Succeeded: s/undersanding /understanding /
Succeeded: s/udnerstanding /understanding /
FAILED: s/differnt langauge /different language /
Succeeded: s/senstence shouln't /sentence shouldn't /
Succeeded: s/coulple/couple/
Succeeded: s/disussion /discussion /
Succeeded: s/acticulated /articulated /
Succeeded: s/imporant some aren't./important some aren't important./
Succeeded: s/noramlly /normally /
Succeeded: s/couln't /couldn't /
Succeeded: s/weight /weigh /
Succeeded: s/tuesday/Tuesday/
Succeeded: s/will mee /will meet /
Succeeded: s/suplimentary /supplementary /
Succeeded: s/an add /and add /
Succeeded: s/differnt/different/
Succeeded: s/langauge /language /
Succeeded: s/open uop /open up /
Succeeded: s/ multple / multiple /
Succeeded: s/seperate /separate /
Default Present: Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, ShawnT, Francis_Storr, JustineP, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, alastairc, garcialo, mbgower, Daniel, shadi, joweismantel, corey_hinshaw, LoriO, Makoto, MichaelC_, dan_bjorge, kirkwood, Detlev, Jaunita_George, GreggVan, AWK, Raf
Present: Chuck, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, ChrisLoiselle, ShawnT, Francis_Storr, JustineP, Ben_Tillyer, bruce_bailey, alastairc, garcialo, mbgower, Daniel, shadi, joweismantel, corey_hinshaw, LoriO, Makoto, MichaelC_, dan_bjorge, kirkwood, Detlev, Jaunita_George, GreggVan, AWK, Raf, garcialo1
Found Scribe: Laura_Carlson
Found Scribe: dan_bjorge
Inferring ScribeNick: dan_bjorge
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Found Scribe: mbgower
Inferring ScribeNick: mbgower
Scribes: Laura_Carlson, dan_bjorge, mbgower
ScribeNicks: dan_bjorge, mbgower

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: 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.)