13:31:46 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #wcag2ict
13:31:50 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-irc
13:31:50 <Zakim> agenda cleared
13:31:50 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:31:51 <Zakim> Meeting: WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:32:01 <PhilDay> chair:  PhilDay
13:32:01 <PhilDay> meeting:  WCAG2ICT Task Force Teleconference
13:32:01 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
13:32:02 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
13:32:30 <PhilDay> zakim, please time speakers at 2 minutes
13:32:30 <Zakim> ok, PhilDay
13:32:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ Announcements
13:32:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ Update to introduction to address Mitch’s input
13:32:30 <PhilDay> agenda+ 2.3.2 Three Flashes
13:32:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ 2.3.3 Timeout
13:32:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)
13:32:31 <PhilDay> agenda+ 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced)
13:32:32 <PhilDay> agenda+ 2.4.8 Location
13:32:32 <PhilDay> agenda+ Discuss content for new SCs from 2.x.x onwards (Level AAA)
13:32:50 <PhilDay> agenda?
13:33:06 <PhilDay> present+
13:58:51 <GreggVan> GreggVan has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:20 <loicmn> loicmn has joined #wcag2ict
14:00:47 <Laura> Laura has joined #WCAG2ICT
14:00:52 <loicmn> present+
14:00:55 <Laura> present+
14:01:09 <Laura> scribe+ Laura
14:01:11 <GreggVan> present+
14:02:00 <Daniel> present+
14:04:39 <bbailey> bbailey has joined #wcag2ict
14:04:47 <bbailey> present+
14:05:19 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:05:19 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Announcements -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:05:47 <bbailey> Link to minutes from Tuesday call where scope of WCAG3 were covered https://www.w3.org/2026/04/21-ag-minutes.html#42ce
14:05:52 <Sam5> Sam5 has joined #Wcag2ict
14:05:55 <PhilDay> Issues list of level AAA SCs that have nobody assigned: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aopen%20label%3AAAA%20sort%3Acreated-asc%20no%3Aassignee%20%22Success%20Criterion%22
14:06:11 <Sam5> Present+
14:06:57 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:06:57 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- Update to introduction to address Mitch’s input -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:07:16 <PhilDay> Original issue raised by Mitch, concerning how we define non-web documents: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/852
14:07:26 <PhilDay> •	Update from Bruce – PR updated?
14:07:26 <PhilDay> PR: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/pull/883
14:07:36 <bbailey> q+
14:07:47 <Laura> ack bbailey
14:07:48 <PhilDay> ack br
14:07:51 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:08:28 <Laura> Bbailey: Looks good.
14:08:41 <Laura> PhilDay: We are adding a note (see change list in Github).
14:08:58 <Laura> PhilDay: and some glossary improvements.
14:10:13 <Laura> Daniel: Minor thing, instances of double spacing so editorial correction needed.
14:10:25 <Laura> q+
14:11:00 <Laura> s/double spacing/two spaces
14:11:05 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:12:26 <PhilDay> action: Editors to do review of full document for instances of double spaces after a full stop
14:13:08 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For the section “Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context”, incorporate proposal from PR 883 into the editor’s draft, as is
14:13:26 <loicmn> +1
14:13:30 <Laura> +1
14:13:33 <GreggVan> +1
14:13:37 <bbailey> +1
14:13:38 <PhilDay> +1
14:13:48 <Daniel> +1
14:14:09 <Laura> sam +1
14:14:11 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For the section “Interpretation of web terminology in a non-web context”, incorporate proposal from PR 883 into the editor’s draft, as is
14:14:17 <PhilDay> zakim, next item
14:14:17 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- 2.3.2 Three Flashes -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:14:20 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:14:20 <Zakim> agendum 3 was just opened, Laura
14:14:25 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/548
14:14:59 <Laura> PhilDay: Continuing the discussion from last week with three flashes. We didn't need an additional note but we had discussion about an editorial comma.
14:15:05 <PhilDay> Proposal 1: no extra commas
14:15:05 <PhilDay> Applying SC 2.3.2 Three Flashes to non-web documents and non-web software
14:15:05 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.2, replacing “Web pages do not” with “non-web document or non-web software does not”.
14:15:05 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, it would read:
14:15:07 <PhilDay> [Non-web document or non-web software does not] contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period.
14:15:07 <PhilDay> Proposal 2: extra commas as per Gregg's suggestion
14:15:07 <PhilDay> Applying SC 2.3.2 Three Flashes to non-web documents and non-web software
14:15:08 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.2, replacing “Web pages do not” with “non-web document, or non-web software, does not”.
14:15:08 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, it would read:
14:15:08 <PhilDay> [Non-web document, or non-web software, does not] contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period.
14:15:36 <bbailey> q+
14:15:41 <Laura> ack bbailey
14:15:42 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:15:49 <GreggVan> q+
14:16:02 <Laura> bbailey: all for deferring this to the editors to solve
14:16:17 <Daniel> q+
14:16:21 <PhilDay> q?
14:16:24 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:16:25 <Laura> bbailey: but as two sentences it works but as a compound thing it is not readable
14:16:57 <Laura> GreggVan: Easy way to solve it "replace with non-webpages do not or non-web software does not"
14:17:49 <PhilDay> q?
14:17:51 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:18:24 <Laura> Daniel: historically whenever possible we combine because it makes a complex document shorter.
14:18:38 <Laura> Daniel: Acknowledging the issue, we should consider this is an issue elsewhere.
14:18:46 <Laura> Daniel: Do not think the comma solves this.
14:19:32 <PhilDay> Action: Editors to open issue to consider similar instances of substitution for non web documents or non web software
14:19:37 <bbailey> I agree that there is an issues, and not addressed by merely adding a comma.
14:19:46 <loicmn> q+
14:19:48 <PhilDay> q?
14:19:53 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:20:27 <GreggVan> q+
14:20:36 <Laura> Loicmn: I have been looking through WCAG - only the 3 flashes SC use the sentence, web*
14:20:38 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:21:02 <PhilDay> Proposal 3: separate substitutions
14:21:02 <PhilDay> Applying SC 2.3.2 Three Flashes to non-web documents and non-web software
14:21:02 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.2, replacing “Web pages do not” with “non-web document does not" or "non-web software does not”.
14:21:02 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, it would read:
14:21:04 <PhilDay> [Non-web document does not] contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period.
14:21:04 <PhilDay> [Non-web software software does not] contain anything that flashes more than three times in any one second period.
14:21:07 <Daniel> q+ to say it's the phrase plus the verb that qualifies the phrase what we should be looking for, and I think there's more instances of this
14:21:10 <PhilDay> •	POLL: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, do you prefer Proposal 1 (without extra commas) or Proposal 2 (with extra commas)? Answer with a 1 for Proposal 1, 2 for Proposal 2, 3, for Proposal 3, or 0 for no preference.
14:21:10 <Laura> Loicmn: web pages do not. it's only something specific for these two sections.
14:21:22 <PhilDay> POLL: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, do you prefer Proposal 1 (without extra commas) or Proposal 2 (with extra commas)? Answer with a 1 for Proposal 1, 2 for Proposal 2, 3, for Proposal 3, or 0 for no preference.
14:21:24 <Laura> GreggVan: I'll take a look at it and see how many instances there are.
14:21:42 <Daniel> https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/
14:22:15 <Daniel> q-
14:22:41 <PhilDay> •	POLL: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, do you prefer Proposal 1 (without extra commas), Proposal 2 (with extra commas), or Proposal 3 (separate sentences)? Answer with a 1 for Proposal 1, 2 for Proposal 2, 3, for Proposal 3, or 0 for no preference.
14:22:47 <PhilDay> POLL: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, do you prefer Proposal 1 (without extra commas), Proposal 2 (with extra commas), or Proposal 3 (separate sentences)? Answer with a 1 for Proposal 1, 2 for Proposal 2, 3, for Proposal 3, or 0 for no preference.
14:22:54 <GreggVan> 3
14:22:57 <loicmn> 3
14:22:57 <bbailey> 3
14:23:02 <Daniel> 3
14:23:03 <PhilDay> 3
14:23:25 <Sam> Sam has joined #Wcag2ict
14:23:33 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, incorporate proposal 3 into the editor's draft, as is
14:23:42 <Laura> +1
14:23:46 <bbailey> +1
14:23:51 <PhilDay> +1
14:23:54 <loicmn> +1
14:23:54 <Sam> +1
14:24:05 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 2.3.2 Three Flashes, incorporate proposal 3 into the editor's draft, as is
14:24:14 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:24:14 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- 2.3.3 Timeout -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:24:26 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/549
14:24:54 <PhilDay> Applying SC 2.3.3 Animation from Interactions to non-web documents and non-web software
14:24:54 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.3
14:25:25 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 2.3.3 Animation from Interactions,incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:25:34 <bbailey> +1
14:25:35 <loicmn> +1
14:25:37 <Daniel> +1
14:25:38 <Laura> +1
14:25:40 <PhilDay> +1
14:25:44 <GreggVan> +1
14:25:58 <Sam> +1
14:26:00 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 2.3.3 Animation from Interactions,incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, as is
14:26:09 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:26:09 <Zakim> agendum 5 -- 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:26:30 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/564
14:26:47 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:26:48 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.6, replacing “Web pages that require” with “Content that requires”.
14:26:48 <PhilDay> With these substitutions, it would read:
14:26:48 <PhilDay> For content Web pages that requires the user to submit information, at least one of the following is true:
14:26:49 <PhilDay> Reversible
14:26:49 <PhilDay> Submissions are reversible.
14:26:49 <PhilDay> Checked
14:26:50 <PhilDay> Data entered by the user is checked for input errors and the user is provided an opportunity to correct them.
14:26:50 <PhilDay> Confirmed
14:26:50 <PhilDay> A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the submission.
14:26:51 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:26:51 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:26:51 <PhilDay> Suggested content for SC in Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:26:52 <PhilDay> ICT with closed functionality may not be able to offer this level of error prevention when limited for security. For example, when entering a personal identification number (PIN) on an ATM, the non-web software is not allowed to know the individual digits that were entered, and therefore the user only gets feedback on completion of the PIN.
14:27:26 <Laura> PhilDay: Applies as written with word substitution and a suggestion/note for why it might be problematic.
14:27:44 <loicmn> q+ to say that we need to be consistent with 3.3.4
14:27:49 <PhilDay> Gregg’s comment: https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/564#issuecomment-4300509979
14:27:56 <PhilDay> q?
14:27:57 <Laura> ack loicmn
14:27:57 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that we need to be consistent with 3.3.4
14:27:59 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:28:23 <Laura> Loicmn: We do have a similar one 3.3.4 which is an error provision. We just can be consistent with the one in AA.
14:28:40 <Laura> Loicmn: No additional notes. Just word substitution
14:29:42 <PhilDay> Replace web pages with non-web documents and non-web software, as we did for 3.3.4
14:29:47 <bbailey> q+
14:29:55 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:30:08 <Laura> bbailey: And are we keeping the note under closed functionality?
14:30:19 <Laura> PhilDay: Note by loicmn that we didn't in 3.3.4
14:30:31 <PhilDay> POLL Should we keep the note for closed functionality, or have no note as per 3.3.4? Yes for note, no for no note
14:30:51 <loicmn> No
14:31:52 <PhilDay> Content for 3.3.4: https://w3c.github.io/wcag2ict/#error-prevention-legal-financial-data
14:32:09 <Laura> bbailey: note we develop for 3.3.6 should go back and be used in 3.3.4
14:32:36 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we keep the note for closed in 3.3.6, and also add to 3.3.4 (option 1), or have it in 3.3.6 only (option 2), or remove from both (option 3)?
14:32:59 <bbailey> 1
14:33:02 <loicmn> 3 then 1
14:33:02 <Sam> 1
14:33:05 <Laura> 1
14:33:05 <Daniel> q+
14:33:06 <GreggVan> 1
14:33:11 <Laura> ack daniel
14:33:57 <bbailey> q+
14:34:13 <Laura> Daniel: Adding this to 3.3.4 includes essential qualifiers vs 3.3.6 does not.
14:34:33 <PhilDay> q?
14:34:35 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:35:01 <Laura> bbailey: 3.3.4 does not have the exception in the body of the SC. That was something we added to ICT.
14:35:09 <PhilDay> q?
14:35:19 <loicmn> q+
14:35:42 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:36:05 <Laura> loicmn: The only difference is that 3.3.4 is restricted to a certain type of data vs 3.3.6 is not restricted.
14:37:08 <Laura> Loicmn: I don't believe we need the noet
14:37:12 <Laura> s/noet/note
14:37:27 <PhilDay> q+
14:37:30 <PhilDay> ack PhilDay
14:37:58 <Laura> PhilDay: ATM example specifically, you can't provide reversible, confirmation, checks.
14:38:30 <bbailey> Its a good note.
14:38:49 <Daniel> q+
14:39:03 <PhilDay> ack Daniel
14:39:15 <Laura> Daniel: May be covered by the reversible option.
14:39:38 <bbailey> q+
14:39:41 <PhilDay> POLL: Should we keep the note for closed in 3.3.6, and also add to 3.3.4 (option 1), or have it in 3.3.6 only (option 2), or remove from both (option 3)?
14:39:46 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:40:14 <PhilDay> q?
14:40:43 <loicmn> 3
14:40:49 <bbailey> 1
14:41:04 <Daniel> 3
14:41:08 <Daniel> q-
14:41:20 <Laura> 1
14:41:34 <Laura> but ok with 3.
14:41:43 <loicmn> q+ to explain the example in the proposed note is not submit
14:41:50 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:41:50 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to explain the example in the proposed note is not submit
14:42:14 <bbailey> q+
14:42:28 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:42:29 <Laura> daniel: This example is not an example of submission of data.
14:42:36 <GreggVan> 3
14:43:06 <Laura> bbailey: how about a note mentioning under closed that submitting the pin allows you to resubmit.
14:43:09 <Laura> q+
14:43:30 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:43:34 <Daniel> scribe+
14:44:09 <Daniel> Laura: Submit as it's defined, it does get submitted. The way you know it's incorrect it's because it's been submitted, checked, and marked as incorrect
14:44:25 <Daniel> ... And it wouldn't be "reversable", it's "repeatable".
14:44:52 <PhilDay> Proposed alternative note: For ICT with closed functionality, an example that meets the intent of reversible is offering the user the ability to submit a password or PIN the second time after an incorrect entry rejected.
14:45:08 <Daniel> GreggVan: It falls under the same logic but it's not the same words, you cannot revert the submission .Agree it's a bad example
14:45:13 <PhilDay> q?
14:45:16 <Daniel> Laura: I think it's a great example for why you need the note
14:45:31 <bbailey> i think being able to re-enter pin or pw falls under Checked
14:45:38 <Daniel> ... In ATMs that's a great example, you cannot check that you've entered the information
14:46:01 <bbailey> > Data entered by the user is checked for input errors and the user is provided an opportunity to correct them.
14:46:06 <PhilDay> For ICT with closed functionality, the user cannot always validate the information before sumission (for example, with entering PIN or password) as it is not validated until after submission. An example that meets the intent of reversible is offering the user the ability to submit a password or PIN the second time after an incorrect entry rejected.
14:46:18 <Daniel> Gregg: We said it has to either be reversable or meet the other clauses
14:46:23 <bbailey> q+
14:46:31 <Daniel> Laura: We're just saying sometimes it cannot be applied due to security checks
14:46:49 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:46:58 <Daniel> scribe-
14:47:16 <loicmn> q+ to say that a PIN or password is not information.... it is identification
14:47:20 <Laura> bbailey: I don't think it's a failure but I do think it's nice to include a note about ATMs
14:47:21 <PhilDay> q?
14:47:27 <Laura> q+
14:47:56 <PhilDay> q?
14:48:05 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:48:05 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say that a PIN or password is not information.... it is identification
14:48:06 <Laura> Laura: Is it ok if there is no opportunity to re enter the pin?
14:48:20 <Laura> Bbailey: It's ok to fail WCAG based on the SC
14:48:43 <Laura> GreggVan: Security "reasons" for not being accessible does not make it accessible.
14:49:39 <Laura> daniel: There is not real input error because there is no bad format. You're not an unidentified person in the system. Your identification is not correct.
14:49:56 <Laura> Daniel: there is nothing special for closed system.
14:50:05 <PhilDay> q?
14:50:16 <Laura> ack laura
14:50:22 <PhilDay> q?
14:50:28 <Daniel> +1 to Loíc
14:50:49 <Laura> Loicmn: There is not real input error because there is no bad format. You're not an unidentified person in the system. Your identification is not correct. There is nothing special for closed system.
14:51:19 <bbailey> i am okay with not having the note
14:51:21 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:51:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:52:11 <Laura> I am ok without the note as well
14:52:28 <PhilDay> DRAFT RESOLUTION: For 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)  incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown (removing notes) in the meeting minutes above
14:52:33 <bbailey> +1
14:52:33 <PhilDay> +1
14:52:34 <loicmn> +1
14:52:36 <GreggVan> +1
14:52:37 <Daniel> +1
14:52:38 <Laura> +1
14:52:51 <PhilDay> RESOLUTION: For 3.3.6 Error Prevention (All)  incorporate proposal into the editor’s draft, with edits shown (removing notes) in the meeting minutes above
14:53:14 <Laura> zakim, next item
14:53:14 <Zakim> agendum 6 -- 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) -- taken up [from PhilDay]
14:53:21 <PhilDay> Link to issue:  https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/565
14:53:52 <PhilDay> Applying SC 3.3.9 Accessible Authentication (Enhanced) to non-web documents and non-web software
14:53:52 <PhilDay> This applies directly as written, and as described in Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.9.
14:53:52 <PhilDay> NOTE (FOR NON-WEB SOFTWARE)
14:53:52 <PhilDay> See also the Comments on Closed Functionality.
14:53:52 <PhilDay> Suggested content for SC in Success Criteria Problematic for Closed Functionality
14:53:52 <PhilDay> Examples in this SC are problematic for closed systems. A third party password manager is not used in a closed system. Web auth alternatives that rely on biometrics will require a second biometric option, using different biometric features. Two factor authentication can not be made available via a USB on a closed system. Two factor authentication
14:53:52 <PhilDay> via QR codes can be problematic for users who are blind/have low vision.
14:55:02 <Laura> q+
14:55:05 <bbailey> q+
14:55:06 <PhilDay> ack Laura
14:55:15 <GreggVan> q+
14:55:45 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:55:54 <Laura> Laura: More issues with the examples than the content
14:55:54 <loicmn> q+ to say the examples don't meet the SC
14:56:16 <Laura> bbailey:  I think whatever we did for 3.3.8 is what we can do for 3.3.9
14:56:23 <PhilDay> q?
14:56:26 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:56:43 <PhilDay> q?
14:56:45 <PhilDay> ack loicmn
14:56:45 <Zakim> loicmn, you wanted to say the examples don't meet the SC
14:56:52 <Laura> greggvan: in that sentence editorial change from "web auth" to "web authentication"
14:57:01 <Laura> loicmn: same as 3.38.
14:57:09 <Laura> Agree.
14:57:29 <Laura> loicmn: if there is something in the note that is useful it should be in both.
14:58:10 <bbailey> q+
14:58:18 <Laura> action: Laura to check 3.3.8 to make 3.3.9 consistent with that content.
14:58:18 <PhilDay> ack bbailey
14:58:19 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:58:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
14:58:27 <GreggVan> q+
14:58:37 <Laura> bbailey: Authentication in this context is really re-authentication.
14:58:52 <PhilDay> q?
14:58:54 <PhilDay> ack GreggVan
14:58:55 <Laura> greggvan: I disagree.
14:59:12 <Laura> greggvan: this is confusing authentication with registration
14:59:41 <Laura> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:59:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Laura
15:00:33 <PhilDay> GreggVan: Been going through document to look for consistency of word substitution (X or Y) - will send through a word document and open a new issue.
15:00:47 <Daniel> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:00:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Daniel
15:00:55 <loicmn> loicmn has left #wcag2ict
15:01:28 <PhilDay> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html PhilDay
15:01:46 <PhilDay> zakim, end meeting
15:01:46 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been PhilDay, loicmn, Laura, GreggVan, Daniel, bbailey, Sam
15:01:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:01:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-minutes.html Zakim
15:01:53 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, PhilDay; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:01:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #wcag2ict
15:02:15 <PhilDay> rrsagent, bye
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-actions.rdf :
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to do review of full document for instances of double spaces after a full stop [1]
15:02:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-irc#T14-12-26
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Editors to open issue to consider similar instances of substitution for non web documents or non web software [2]
15:02:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-irc#T14-19-32
15:02:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Laura to check 3.3.8 to make 3.3.9 consistent with that content. [3]
15:02:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2026/04/23-wcag2ict-irc#T14-58-18