14:42:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
14:42:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-irc
14:42:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:42:24 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:42:26 <PhilDay> zakim, clear agenda
14:42:26 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:42:33 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
14:42:46 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:42:46 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
14:42:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:43:25 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
14:44:12 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
14:44:13 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
14:44:45 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
14:44:51 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 4 - 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded)
14:44:58 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 5 -  (Part 1 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose
14:45:07 <PhilDay> agenda+ Question 6 - (Part 2 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose
14:45:09 <PhilDay> agenda?
14:45:26 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
14:45:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:46:05 <PhilDay> present+
14:46:18 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
14:46:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
14:59:17 <PhilDay> present+
15:01:31 <BBailey> BBailey has joined #wcag2ict
15:01:44 <BBailey> present+
15:03:20 <Daniel> present+
15:03:26 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:03:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:04:01 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:04:11 <loicmn> present+
15:05:53 <Daniel> scribe+
15:06:04 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
15:06:04 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:06:08 <GreggVan> present+
15:06:30 <LauraM> LauraM has joined #WCAG2ICT
15:06:57 <LauraM> present+
15:07:58 <BBailey> q+ reminder
15:08:11 <PhilDay> Link to project board view: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/13
15:08:13 <Daniel> PhilDay: Three more questions. We don't have any other drafted content. Please have a look at the status wiki or project list
15:08:19 <PhilDay> Link to level AAA status table on wiki: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/wiki/Adding-Level-AAA-%E2%80%90-status-table
15:08:30 <PhilDay> ack BBailey
15:08:59 <Daniel> BBailey: Timezone's changing. Look at that for the next three weeks
15:09:00 <Daniel> ... There's two CFCs on AGWG this week
15:09:24 <Daniel> PhilDay: Question on non-web ICT. It's used more than 16 times and I think it's cconsistent
15:09:32 <GreggVan> q+
15:09:32 <PhilDay> Issue on use of non-web ICT: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/840
15:09:37 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:09:46 <Daniel> s/cconsistent/consistent/
15:10:12 <Daniel> GreggVan: non-web documents and software versus non-web documents and non-web software is problematic
15:10:27 <Daniel> ... We cna have non-web always or never repeated
15:10:36 <Daniel> PhilDay: I'll create an action to review this
15:10:44 <Daniel> GreggVan: Yes, I think this is editorial
15:10:52 <PhilDay> ACTION: Search for use of non-web documents and software vs non-web documents and non-web software - use consistently
15:11:00 <BBailey> q+
15:11:00 <PhilDay> ack BBailey
15:11:25 <Daniel> BBailey: Agree with consistency. I think non-web ICT is different than that
15:11:35 <Daniel> GreggVan: Should say "includes but is not limited to"
15:11:49 <PhilDay> q+ to ask clarification
15:11:53 <PhilDay> ack remin
15:11:56 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
15:11:56 <Zakim> PhilDay, you wanted to ask clarification
15:11:57 <BBailey> non-web ICT includes but is not limited to non-web documents and software
15:12:29 <Daniel> PhilDay: Do we need to make further edits to your proposed updates to intro?
15:12:32 <LauraM> q+
15:12:52 <Daniel> GreggVan: There are instances on the intro, and possibly other places too. We need to make clear that it's a shorthand
15:13:25 <PhilDay> ACTION: Define non-web ICT as includes but not limited to non web docs and software
15:13:27 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
15:14:02 <Daniel> LauraM: What would we be looking for if I were to take an editorial pass at the whole document?
15:14:22 <Daniel> GreggVan: I thikn it's in the intro where we define non-web ICT, unless we have it on the definitions section
15:14:28 <Daniel> LauraM: Or both
15:14:38 <Daniel> GreggVan: Might be a good idea to put this on the definitions
15:14:43 <LauraM> s/thikn/think
15:14:55 <PhilDay> q?
15:15:09 <Daniel> ... Then every place where we use "non-web documents and softwre", it either ought to be always as-is or we should repeat "non-web" for software as well
15:15:09 <LauraM> q+
15:15:26 <PhilDay> ack LauraM
15:15:31 <Daniel> ... These two occurrences may imply we mean something different
15:15:44 <Daniel> LauraM: We mean "non-web documents" and "non-web software". Is that correct?
15:16:15 <PhilDay> q?
15:16:19 <BBailey> ACTION: Editorial pass for consistent use of “non-web documents and software” versus "non-web documents and non-web software”
15:16:25 <Daniel> GreggVan: I would ssay "non-web documents and non-web softwware" to unambiguously define these better.
15:16:41 <Daniel> LauraM: It feels ambiguous, even though I feel I know whawt it means
15:16:42 <PhilDay> q+ to ask LauraM if she is volunteering
15:16:50 <LauraM> Yes.
15:16:53 <Daniel> ... I think it's less ambiguous to say "non-web documents and non-web software"
15:17:28 <Daniel> GreggVan: EN 301 549 has it separate
15:17:29 <LauraM> s/whawt/what
15:17:30 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we use "non-web documents and software" (option 1) or "non-web documents and non-web software" (option 2) throughout the document?
15:17:38 <Daniel> ... And then there's software that's broader than these two
15:17:38 <BBailey> 2
15:17:39 <LauraM> 2
15:17:47 <GreggVan> 2
15:18:01 <Daniel> q+
15:18:08 <PhilDay> q-
15:18:15 <PhilDay> Loic: option 2
15:18:22 <Daniel> q-
15:18:24 <Daniel> 2
15:18:30 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: use "non
15:19:05 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: Use "non-web documents and non-web software" consistently throughout to avoid ambiguity
15:19:17 <Daniel> Daniel: Why not shorthand?
15:19:39 <Daniel> GreggVan: Still ambiguous and doesn't follow commonly accepted  English meaning
15:19:43 <Daniel> +1
15:19:44 <BBailey> +1
15:19:53 <GreggVan> +1
15:19:54 <Daniel> Loic: +1
15:19:56 <LauraM> +1
15:20:05 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: Use "non-web documents and non-web software" consistently throughout to avoid ambiguity
15:20:45 <Daniel> Laura: I'll take a pass at the whole document to amend this
15:20:49 <BBailey> We could always use parenthesis:  non-web (documents and software) /s
15:21:00 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
15:21:00 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Question 4 - 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:21:12 <PhilDay> Link to q4: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-take-two/results/#xq4
15:21:19 <PhilDay> Link to Google doc with proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gqDIF29q2SgjaHNquVd0f0spmxzDGvwdMnRsIwVJF8A/edit?usp=sharing
15:21:36 <PhilDay> Proposal 2: Add 2 notes to address comments – clean – all suggestions accepted
15:21:36 <PhilDay> Applying SC 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:21:36 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:21:36 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added)
15:21:38 <PhilDay> With current technologies, providing sign language for all synchronized media is a labor-intensive process. In the absence of reliable automated methods to produce sign language interpretation, it would not be technically feasible to require for all audio content to have sign language interpretation, especially where non-web documents and software
15:21:38 <PhilDay> have a large amount of audio content.
15:21:38 <PhilDay> [ALTERNATE NOTE 1]
15:21:39 <PhilDay> With current technologies, providing sign language for all synchronized media is labor-intensive. In the absence of reliable automated methods to produce sign language interpretation, it would not be technically feasible to require all audio content to have sign language interpretation.
15:21:39 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:21:39 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information.
15:21:40 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:21:40 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:21:40 <PhilDay> Then in the SC Problematic for Closed Functionality add the following bullet:
15:21:41 <PhilDay> 1.2.6 Sign Language (Prerecorded) — Where the ICT does not have the ability to provide or attach a display (e.g. an audio-only device), it would not be appropriate to require this success criterion because it would require a fundamental alteration to the ICT’s intended design and usage.
15:21:50 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Gregg’s proposed language from survey – clean – all suggestions accepted
15:21:50 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:21:50 <PhilDay> NOTE 1:   Today, there are not enough sign language interpreters world-wide to handle content generated in a single day making it logistically impossible to require for all content. However, emerging technologies will fairly soon allow translation from text or speech to sign language directly - at which time those who want sign language could use
15:21:50 <PhilDay> such a translator in the same way people who are blind use a screen reader.   This would give people who need sign language presentation the same or superior access that screen reader users have to all web content. However, until the latter occurs, providing sign language interpretations is immensely helpful for native sign language users -
15:21:52 <PhilDay> especially for any public service content.
15:21:52 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:21:52 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information..
15:21:53 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:21:53 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:21:59 <PhilDay> Proposal 4: Taking Daniel’s comments from the survey to adjust Note 1 - clean – all suggestions accepted
15:21:59 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.6.
15:21:59 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added)
15:21:59 <PhilDay> With current technologies, specialized human intervention is needed to produce high enough quality sign language interpretation that would satisfy this requirement. This causes limitations on the amount of media content that can be provided with sign language interpretation. However, providing sign language interpretation is immensely helpful for
15:22:01 <PhilDay> native sign language users - especially for any public service content.
15:22:01 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:22:01 <PhilDay> Some pre-programmed interactions (e.g., a game or VR) are considered “synchronized media” because the audio is timed to correspond with specific visual information.
15:22:02 <PhilDay> Note 3 (Added) (for non-web software)
15:22:02 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
15:22:36 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
15:22:37 <BBailey> q+
15:22:54 <loicmn> present+
15:23:24 <PhilDay> q?
15:23:27 <PhilDay> ack BBailey
15:23:43 <Daniel> BBailey: I'd want to vote for proposal 4, but survey was closed
15:23:45 <PhilDay> BBailey: wanted to vote for proposal 4.
15:24:05 <GreggVan> q+
15:24:12 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:25:09 <Daniel> GreggVan: I think what's missing is that we should clarify that the screen reader is not an author problem. Very soon we'll have the ability for sign language to be added to every page with AI
15:25:28 <Daniel> ... There will be a tool that will make it available for all the pages
15:25:29 <Daniel> q+
15:25:30 <PhilDay> q?
15:25:33 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
15:25:38 <PhilDay> scribe:
15:25:42 <PhilDay> scribe+ PhilDay
15:26:25 <GreggVan> q+
15:26:31 <PhilDay> Daniel: Sounds like we are saying "we could do this through some AI tool in the future" - like screenreaders can. Also not sure if this is close in the future
15:26:48 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:27:20 <Daniel> GreggVan: Screen readers are a solution because we have "programmatically determined"
15:27:33 <Daniel> ... For sign language we are saying we need to build a screen reader for every page
15:28:01 <Daniel> ... It's nowadays technically not possible
15:28:19 <PhilDay> q?
15:28:28 <Daniel> ... We should add for wwhen it is automatically possible
15:28:52 <Daniel> ... Different people use different kinds of sign languages
15:29:25 <PhilDay> q?
15:29:43 <Daniel> PhilDay: I'm hearing arguments for these two proposals, 3 and 4
15:30:25 <PhilDay> POLL: which proposal do you prefer, also include which you could also accept? 3 - proposal 3. 4 - proposal 4.
15:30:30 <GreggVan> q+
15:30:39 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:31:21 <BBailey> prefer proposal 4, can accept proposal 3
15:31:24 <GreggVan> 3
15:31:27 <loicmn> 3 (with edits as suggested by Daniel, Gregg), then 4
15:31:29 <Daniel> GreggVan: Not possible today, definitely possible before WCAG 3 comes out :-)
15:32:02 <Daniel> 4, can accept 3 with subsequent editorial edits
15:32:13 <GreggVan> s/definitely/extremely/
15:32:42 <Daniel> LauraM: I am abstaining
15:33:20 <Daniel> PhilDay: Based on the votes, the only one that is acceptable for everyone is 3
15:33:29 <GreggVan> q+
15:33:31 <Daniel> ... I would propose we go with 3
15:33:33 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:33:49 <Daniel> GreggVan: Yes, but I'd like to make sure comments from Daniel are addressed
15:34:04 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Suggest a minor edit to proposal 3 to address Daniel's comments
15:34:18 <BBailey> Laura's comment from survey:  Both options (as is and with Gregg's proposed edit) are fine. I don't feel strongly in either direction.
15:34:21 <PhilDay> GreggVan to propose suitable wording.
15:34:36 <Daniel> Daniel: Happy to move forward with this later, will watch for Gregg's proposal
15:34:49 <PhilDay> Suggestion is that we go forward with a revised version of proposal 3; GreggVan to issue this revised version.
15:35:00 <Daniel> zakim, take up next
15:35:00 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Question 5 -  (Part 1 of 2) 1.3.6 Identify Purpose -- taken up [from PhilDay]
15:35:11 <PhilDay> Link to q5: https://www.w3.org/wbs/55145/AAA-take-two/results/#xq5
15:35:17 <PhilDay> Link to Google doc, proposal 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfStYHN0GnFa1_dpsM1Ot7lbe46QkFAg5Qqu9U0KQ7U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.x61pq5pnaygi
15:35:52 <Daniel> PhilDay: Most prefer 3 as written. Gregg, you did have some edits
15:36:20 <Daniel> GreggVan: We shouldn't have a note defining something that's in the definition. I suggest we link to the definition
15:36:34 <Daniel> ... Then, if I write a letter in HTML, do I have to put headings in the letter?
15:36:55 <Daniel> ... Provision is if you have headings, these would need to be accessible
15:38:16 <Daniel> PhilDay: Mary Jo has comments here. Maybe it's related to WCAG itself rather than to WCAG2ICT?
15:38:33 <Daniel> GreggVan: It's helpful, but not required, this is why it's AAA
15:39:04 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: Modify the 1.3.6 SC language to not use “region”
15:39:04 <PhilDay> Make a suggested change to the SC language to not use “region” and instead use the term “section”.
15:39:04 <PhilDay> Applying 1.3.6 Identify Purpose to Non-Web Documents and Software
15:39:04 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.6, replacing “regions” with “sections” because non-web documents and software often do not have a semantic equivalent to a “region” as it is defined by WCAG 2.
15:39:06 <PhilDay> With this substitution, it would read:
15:39:06 <PhilDay> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of user interface components, icons, and sections can be programmatically determined.
15:39:06 <PhilDay> Note 1 (Added)
15:39:07 <PhilDay> A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections.
15:39:07 <PhilDay> Note 2 (Added)
15:39:07 <PhilDay> This success criterion only applies to non-web documents and software that are implemented using markup languages, that support programmatically exposing the purpose of user interface components, icons and sections, and that the user agent or platform software can extract and present that purpose to users using different modalities, as explained in
15:39:08 <PhilDay> the Intent from Understanding 1.3.6 Identify Purpose.
15:39:24 <Daniel> ... I think we need to explain why it's in AAA
15:39:28 <loicmn> q+ to say that 1.3.6 is not requiring sections
15:41:42 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:41:42 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that 1.3.6 is not requiring sections
15:42:01 <Daniel> Loíc: The SC is not asking to create sections
15:42:11 <Daniel> ... IF sections exists, then they need to be programmatically determined
15:42:14 <GreggVan> q+
15:42:20 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
15:42:24 <Daniel> ... The letter example would be the letter as a whole section
15:42:44 <Daniel> GreggVan: The definition of section is a paragraph, it could be anything
15:42:46 <PhilDay> q?
15:43:04 <Daniel> q+
15:43:11 <BBailey> q+
15:43:12 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
15:43:41 <PhilDay> Daniel: know we have some ambiguity on definition of section - not sure it is as bad as constituting a paragraph
15:43:45 <PhilDay> ack Br
15:43:50 <Daniel> Daniel: I don't think a section is equal to a paragraph
15:43:50 <PhilDay> ack BBailey
15:44:02 <Daniel> BBailey: The problem is that section and region as used in WCAG 2 have the same meaning
15:44:27 <PhilDay> q?
15:44:35 <Daniel> ... This has been raised to AG and AG doesn't feel like making any editorial corrections in the short time
15:45:25 <Daniel> GreggVan: It would be helpful to explain why it is on AAA. Everytime we change topics that is a new section
15:45:49 <Daniel> BBailey: They're both underspecified
15:45:53 <PhilDay> q?
15:46:14 <Daniel> PhilDay: Most people preferred this prooposal. Which concrete changes would you suggest, Gregg?
15:46:24 <PhilDay> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nfStYHN0GnFa1_dpsM1Ot7lbe46QkFAg5Qqu9U0KQ7U/edit?tab=t.0
15:47:36 <PhilDay> q?
15:47:44 <BBailey> From WCAG 2.2:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-regions
15:47:46 <BBailey> perceivable, programmatically determined section of content
15:48:19 <PhilDay> q?
15:48:20 <Daniel> Gregg: Section definition applies it to only markup languages
15:48:34 <PhilDay> GreggVan: suggests removal of note 2 from proposal 3
15:48:36 <BBailey> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#dfn-section
15:48:46 <loicmn> q+ to say the SC talks about markup languages so note 2 is needed
15:48:46 <BBailey> a self-contained portion of **written** content that deals with one or more related topics or thoughts
15:48:51 <BBailey> emphasis added
15:48:54 <Daniel> ... I don't think note 2 should be there
15:49:56 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Suggests replacing both notes with new note:
15:49:56 <PhilDay> Although helpful to provide headings to better understand the content, it is not required as it is not clear when topics are changing.
15:49:56 <LauraM> @PhilDay been a while since I edited in Github for this, can we schedule a brief call to run through it quickly?
15:50:06 <Daniel> ... The only thing I would do is to replace the two notes with a new one that says that although this is helpful, it's not required because it's not clear when the top things are changing, or when therre's a change of topic, or if people are changing topics, ect
15:50:17 <PhilDay> q?
15:50:19 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
15:50:19 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say the SC talks about markup languages so note 2 is needed
15:51:01 <Daniel> Loic: Note 2 iss taking from other examples of SCs that contain the same "content implemented using markup languages"
15:51:16 <Daniel> ... It is not asking for sections to exist, it's asking for the purpose of sections to be programmatically determined
15:51:32 <Daniel> ... It's AAA because purpose is difficult to generalize across other technologies
15:51:42 <Daniel> ... I still feel that proposal 3 is good enough
15:52:00 <Daniel> GreggVan: I think that 3 is fine without the notes
15:52:03 <BBailey> fwiw I also agree proposal 3 is good enough
15:52:42 <PhilDay> POLL: Which would you prefer for 1.3.6? 3 for proposal 3. 4 for Gregg's edit to proposal 3 (replacing 2 notes with something else). 5 for something else
15:52:47 <Daniel> ... Note 1 shouldn't be defining section, that's normative in WCAG
15:52:50 <PhilDay> q?
15:53:15 <Daniel> ... If note 2 is repeating what's already on the provisions, we should not be using it
15:53:28 <PhilDay> q?
15:53:37 <Daniel> ... Some software uses HTML in combination with other technologies
15:54:26 <Daniel> PhilDay: I've put a poll
15:54:34 <PhilDay> GreggVan had to leave for another call
15:55:01 <Daniel> LauraM: The notes a re about the definitions, the note 2 is the one that's not substantial
15:55:01 <BBailey> 4 (greggs edit to proposal 3) but 3 is okay
15:55:11 <Daniel> ... Maybe we should separate in the poll
15:55:52 <Daniel> s/not/more/
15:56:21 <PhilDay> POLL: Which would you prefer for 1.3.6? 3 for proposal 3 with both notes as written. 4 for proposal 3 with note 1 only, 5 for proposal 3 with note 2 only. 6 for proposal 3 with Gregg's new note. 7 for anything else
15:56:24 <BBailey> Just noting that this will come up again when we tackle 1.2.10 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#section-headings AAA
15:56:53 <BBailey> s/tackle 1.2.10/tackle 2.4.10/
15:56:55 <loicmn> 3, then 5
15:56:58 <LauraM> 4
15:57:10 <BBailey> 6 but okay with other choices
15:57:16 <Daniel> 3
15:58:06 <Daniel> PhilDay: No consensus on this one, we'll continue next week. Reach to me via email, I'll create a survey to address these concerns
15:58:08 <BBailey> q+
15:58:12 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:58:20 <GreggVan> 6
15:58:22 <PhilDay> ack BBailey
15:58:43 <Daniel> BBailey: 2.4.10 is one we could do, as it's also related to sections
15:58:46 <PhilDay> BBailey: Suggest we look at how we handled 2.4.10 as there is some crossover
15:58:49 <LauraM> Regrets for me next week
15:58:59 <PhilDay> q?
15:59:36 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:59:43 <GreggVan> as written without the notes defining section  -- or restating that it is html  -- but not applying to embeded html in a app where it is not a "document" in form.
15:59:44 <Daniel> Topic: Next steps
15:59:58 <Daniel> PhilDay: We will continue with this one next week, then move on to the definition of section/region
16:00:12 <Daniel> ... People please take more items on so that we have more drafted content to work on next weeks
16:00:21 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
16:00:32 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
16:01:02 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
16:01:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, BBailey, Daniel, loicmn, GreggVan, LauraM
16:01:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
16:01:06 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
16:01:12 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:01:12 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
16:01:14 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
16:01:14 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
16:01:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Search for use of non-web documents and software vs non-web documents and non-web software - use consistently [1]
16:01:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-irc#T15-10-52
16:01:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Define non-web ICT as includes but not limited to non web docs and software [2]
16:01:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-irc#T15-13-25
16:01:14 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Editorial pass for consistent use of “non-web documents and software” versus "non-web documents and non-web software” [3]
16:01:14 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/02/26-wcag2ict-irc#T15-16-19