<Chuck> meeting: AGWG-2023-03-07

<Chuck> ○ agenda+ Questions on Editor's Draft Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/draft-revew-Feb-23/ https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/draft-revew-Feb-23/results

<SuzanneTaylor> scribe: SuzanneTaylor

<Jennie> #present+

Chuck: Anyone new?
... Any new topics?
... Announcement: No AGWG meeting next week, because of 2 conferences next week
... We will resume on the 21st

<alastairc> In the UK (and I think EU), the meeting on the 21st will be an hour early.

Chuck: US and CA start daylight savings time, please be aware on the 21st meeting and on the CSUN mtg

Announce: Upcoming schedule around CSUN

<Chuck> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Meetings/CSUN_2023

Chuck: We will have a face to face at CSUN
... review planned agenda; meeting most of day with lunch break; lunch provided for in person participants

<AWK> +AWK

<Jennie> *Thank you for the read ahead information!

<Cyborg> is any of this moveable re schedule? will try to move my other commitment...but need to check

Rachael: Read ahead material is on this page. We will discuss conformance options. Important to read ahead.

<AWK> /me can someone paste the link in again

<Cyborg> i mean sequence of items

Chuck: we might be able move sequence of items a bit, but trying to finalize now

<Cyborg> 1st half is trickier for me...will need to move stuff. 2nd half open.

<Cyborg> yes i saw the time change

Rachael: because the topics build on eachother, we can't move much

<Cyborg> doesn't affect concern but will try to move stuff

<Cyborg> ok...

<Chuck> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VBat4Vg8hmCzXrUnyRvZv4CQexouGUcyqEocF3Ynv_Q/edit#slide=id.p

Chuck: Makoto will provide an update on accesibility supported; link to presentation is in the agenda

Makoto: For international standard, Accessibility Supported is very important. For example in Japan, PCTalker is used, not JAWS
... <reviews definition of Accessibility Supported in WCAG 2.1>

<scribe> ... new idea: could we have a baseline of NVDA and VoiceOver, since these are used internationally and seem to be same between languages

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: wanted to check with stakeholders in Japan
... checked with experts and vendor in Japan
... in Japan there is a committee WAIC whose purpose is to translate and apply WCAG in Japan
... Working Group 2 covers "Accessibility Supported" topic
... Asked this group about NVDA as baseline for PC (as opposed to PCTalker, which is popular and part of requirements in Japan)
... The task of figuring out if an html element is accessibility supported is significant
... and it can be a matter of opinion when there is partial support

<alastairc> Conclusions I am drawing - Accessibility Supported needs to be more granular than "supports ARIA", should be at the method level. Should be up to regulators (with guidance) for setting which methods should be required. Also, there should be alternative methods when the optimal method is not available.

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: next, Makoto met with PCTalker (vendor)
... they tend to delay support
... 1) difficult to create test files
... 2) difficult to know how to implement

<Chuck> Shawn, I'm planning to wait for Makoto to get to the end before I go to queue.

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: they look to see what other screen readers do
... they wait for customers to request support
... Through the meetings, Makoto found that a baseline missing PCTalker would be an issue in Japan
... suggests: an informative test suite to help implementers
... suggests: judgement criteria for "accessibility supported"

<kirkwood> who would hold the list of “sufficient technologies”?

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: this would save time and cost and help more features to be implemented faster
... each test file should have *concrete criteria* and be consistent with *ACT rules*
... for ARIA, something nearly perfect for this exists
... HTML5 Accessibility dot com also does something like this for HTML
... suggest: if AGWG accepts this proposal, the next step would be to discuss collaborations

<jon_avila> This site provides some details on support by AT https://a11ysupport.io/

<Zakim> Ben_Tillyer, you wanted to ask about vendors not meeting current standards

Ben_Tillyer: PCTalker, or Dolphin, both don't support the latest developments, do we need to wait for these? Also, what about users who can't afford the latest OS or latest screen reader?

<Laura> Scribe: Laura

<scribe> Scribe: SuzanneTaylor

Makoto: WCAG 2 was very well organized because anyone can use the same SC, but with different techniques based on the expected users

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to draw attention to comments made in irc.

Ben_Tillyer: so what if a technique were specifically for PCTalker, but a JAWS user comes accross the element; would we need to say which techique is for which AT?

<alastairc> You'd need fall-back methods, e.g. can meet outcome with ARIA, but also with a general method for adding text explaination to the page.

<kirkwood> that was my question too. seems we would therefore need to maintain that list of technologies and techniques for technologies, no?

Makoto: We can help PCTalker to support more of the lastest features, in my opinion; it's simple, the vendor wants information; If we can provide the test files, they can implement faster

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say I have cautions about ios and wanted to point out ARIA-AT group

mbgower: I have some cautions about iOS
... it is proprietary
... developer is trying to make something the same for everyone across browsers and then again across AT
... maybe looking at the Accessibility Tree would be a solution to simplify
... Can we use the tree instead of AT?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to draw attention to comments made in irc.

Makoto: It depends on the screen reader vendors; If they are watching the Accessibility Tree, this might work, but I would have to check with PCTalker

Chuck: Comments were made in IRC during presentation

<Rachael> I think this direction is potentially a way to walk the fine line that we have between incorporating user agents without dictating to user agents. Thank you Makoto for this presentation.

Alastair: Conclusion: we need accessibility supported at the method level and alternative/fallback methods

<Chuck> I don't remember how to close queue, but I will wrap this up and move on with our agenda.

JohnKirkwood: agree accessibility tree might help with the foundational differences of technology

<Zakim> Wilco, you wanted to talk about ACT and accessibility support

<jon_avila> It seems that orgs still need flexibility to define their own level of accessibility support as some orgs can control the technology stack used.

Wilco: Accessibility Tree itself is not standardized; I support including sample code in the methods
... Would this be enough along with ACT having a section listing known exceptions in Accessibility Support?

<kirkwood> then we would need to maintain that list of accessibility support issues?

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to ask about next steps

<Chuck> poll: does this direction makes sense to explore further for WCAG 3?

Makoto: If we can add concrete criteria for screen reader vendors, it would be prefect; would like to see ACT code examples include instructions on how the Screen Readers should read the code aloud

<Chuck> Yes

<jon_avila> What direction?

Chuck: introduces poll

<AWK> +1 to Jon

Chuck: 2 actionable items: 1) exploring using accessibility tree and 2) Wilco's group to provide doc on known accessibility supported issues
... other actionable items?

JonAvila: Are we proposing a different direction from 2.x where organizations could define their support?

Makoto: in my opinion, WCAG 3 should keep same way of thinking as WCAG 2, and let content providers define which user agents they support
... but what we need to do is share the information on what the user agents need to do

JenStrickland: What I took away was the code examples that we should be providing with our methods - is this one of the action items?

Chuck: yes

JenStrickland: I think we could crowdsource this on github, and even the detail on which code examples pair with which AT

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say there is not really an obvious way to report failure of compliance to accessibility supported

mbgower: how will we report failures in accessibility supported? for example, if something works with keyboard, but not with keyboard AND a particular AT

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to update straw poll (using Rachael's)

<Chuck> draft straw poll: Continue to explore providing test files and sample code, provided by ARIA-AT, HTML5 and ACT within methods to support accessibility supported. Within that explore whether focusing on AT or the accessibility tree would need further discussion.

Chuck: Let's make that a separate topic

<Chuck> straw poll: Continue to explore providing test files and sample code, provided by ARIA-AT, HTML5 and ACT within methods to support accessibility supported. Within that explore whether focusing on AT or the accessibility tree would need further discussion.

<Chuck> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<Ben_Tillyer> +1

<Wilco> +1

<Rachael> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<mbgower> +1

<Azlan> +1

+1

<GN015> +1

<Makoto> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Jennie> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<jeanne> +1

<Rachael> This would be the direction for the next accessibility supported subgroup

<AWK> +.99

<Poornima> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<chinshaw> +1

<Laura> +1

RESOLUTION: Continue to explore providing test files and sample code, provided by ARIA-AT, HTML5 and ACT within methods to support accessibility supported. Within that explore whether focusing on AT or the accessibility tree would need further discussion.

<GreggVan> Thanks wilco !

<mbgower> Also, we aren't addressing the whole issue of how ANYONE knows whether a failure is the result of the AT or their code

<JenStrickland> Fantastic work, Makoto!

Chuck: Thank you Makoto

Question 1 - Technology agnostic methods

Chuck: <reads first question>

<Rachael> current language in draft: Each outcome includes methods associated with different technologies. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome. The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies based solely on the outcome, even when methods do not yet exist for those technologies.

<Rachael> proposed language: Each outcome includes methods. Methods may be technology agnostic or technology-specific. Each method contains techniques and sets of tests for meeting the outcome. The outcomes and technology-agnostic methods are written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies and other situations where a technology-specific method does not exist.

Chuck: 5 people suppported current; 9 people supported proposed
... one theme was normative versus non-normative methods; can people use the general methods just because they don't like the specific methods?

<Rachael> Methods are informative at this moment

<GreggVan> correct

Wilco: The methods are not normative

<Rachael> the decisions about normative and informative from our work at TPAC are at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcOWm75D5ocd6gUhfsnSz-XK7lcNKW4EnOiHADTq-fI/edit#heading=h.76yx9j1lbp74

Gregg: Methods are not normative because 1) then they couldn't be changed easily and 2) they aren't exhaustive

Chuck: next theme was revisiting this issue after some content is written
... another theme: implicite reversal of a past decision <reads Wilco's response>
... ACT doesn't allow technology agnostic methods, because they are too vague to test; outcomes serve this purpose
... <reads Mary Jo's comments>
... could preferred methods be required or result in a higher score?

Rachael: We were talking about Outcomes so testers could test; maybe we should clarify word "test"

<Rachael> It did. That can come back much later.

Chuck: biggest theme on the table, do we try even though there was a prior decision? Can you clarify?

Wilco: I do largely agree with Mary Jo's suggestion. There are not enough examples to know for sure we need this.
... ACT rules build on the definitions provided in HTML, CSS or WAI-ARIA
... agnostic methods would have no definitions to build on

<jeanne> +1 to Wilco

<Zakim> jeanne, you wanted to say that we should not be changing prior decisions unless we have data. We are deciding on opinions, instead of on prototypes.

<Poornima> scribe: Poornima

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to ask for clarification on Mary Jo's comment

Shadi: On Mary Jo's comment, you mentioned general techniques are a good guide. Is this needs to be address, is that what meant here?

<Chuck> draft Poll: 1) Write Technology Agnostic Methods, 2) Revisit this later after we've done some development, 3) Do not write Technology Agnostic Methods

<jeanne> +1 to MaryJo. We need to try it and see if we need it.

MaryJoMueller: it could potentially, it benefits to add more techniques over general information to be added in WCAG 3. Not sure what are the general techniques already existing in WCAG 2.x

<Chuck> draft Poll: 1) Write Technology Agnostic Methods Now, 2) Revisit this later after we've done some development (try) 3) Do not write Technology Agnostic Methods

Rachel: we don't have to come to decision today

<jon_avila> 1 or 2

<jeanne> 2

<Chuck> draft Poll: 1) Write Technology Agnostic Methods Now, 2) Revisit this later after we've done some development (try) 3) Do not write Technology Agnostic Method, 4) Cover this in "how to's" for each outcome

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Write Technology Agnostic Methods Now, 2) Revisit this later after we've done some development (try) 3) Do not write Technology Agnostic Method, 4) Cover this in "how to's" for each outcome

Wilco: Can we have add an option for moving to 'how tos'

<Chuck> 2

<Wilco> 4, 3, 2

<GreggVan> 1 there are many Outcomes that are not technoology related so not a problem

<Rachael> 4 with 2, then 1

<SuzanneTaylor> 2 (agree that the outcomes might serve this purpose) or 4

<maryjom> 4 then 2 if we find oddball cases.

<Azlan> 4, 2

2, 4, then 1

<bruce_bailey> 4 3 2

<Laura> 4, 2

<GreggVan> 4 is good compromise

<GN015> 2 and 4

<alastairc> 2, as I can't tell yet... no objection.

<AWK> 1,4

<shadi> 4

<kirkwood> 4

Question 2 - Name of Test Types

Chuck: moving onto the 2nd question
... Quantitative 4, Computation 1, Something else 1

Wilco: surprised by this, I thought Computation had lot of support, but changing to Quantitative also fine if that was selected

MaryJoMueller: Nothing to add more than what I commented

<jeanne> This is a bikeshed problem

<bruce_bailey> +1 to GreggV point that we should not use common words in a specialized way

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say "quantitative" bit misleading

<ChrisLoiselle> +1 to Gregg. There is qual or quant

GreggVan: the more we make it technical or like jargon, not easy to understand with the wording.

<Chuck> +1 to Gregg

<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to speak after the survey is done

Rachel: I want to highly support MaryJo's suggestion

<GreggVan> Quantifiable is a great compromise

<Rachael> Quantifiable means "able to be expressed or measured as a quantity." Qualifiable means "Capable of being assess as having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions.”

<GreggVan> Qualtifiable however means something else

<bruce_bailey> fwiw i think "quantifiable" is better than "quantative"

<Chuck> Poll: 1) Quantitative, 2) Quantifiable, 3) Computational, 3) Procedural, 4) Something else

<GreggVan> 2

Rachel: quantifiable, how measurable it is and it matches very well with qualifiable for its capabilities. It matches the dictionary words

<Chuck> 2

<SuzanneTaylor> 2

<bruce_bailey> 2

<Wilco> 3, 1, 2

<jon_avila> 2

<joweismantel> 2

<maryjom> 2

<Azlan> 2

<Rachael> 2

<jeanne> 2

<Laura> 2

<kirkwood> 2

<Chuck> Poornima: The numbers were off.

2

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Name of test types will be "Quantifiable"

RESOLUTION: Name of test types will be "Quantifiable"

Question 3 - Accessibility Supported

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept The editor's note on Accessibility Supported

<Rachael> +1

<Chuck> +1

<maryjom> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Laura> +1

Chuck: 5 individuals agreed with this, so immediately jumping to resolution

+1

<ShawnT> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<Wilco> +1

<jeanne> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept The editor's note on Accessibility Supported

WCAG 2.2 issues, Questions 1-6 [60 minutes] Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-misc5/

Question 1 - Does 2.4.12 Focus not obscured encourage a keyboard anti-pattern #2809

Chuck: That's end of WCAG 3 content. Now moving onto WCAG 2 content

AlastairC: Question 1, this was discussed in prev meeting. It was discussed to add some example, most ppl agreeing

Gundula: modal example can be an addition
... * modal dialog

mbgower: I know ARIA struggling on this whole, non-modal dialogs means some methods available for keyboard user to get out of it

<Zakim> mbgower, you wanted to say that these things are largely anti-keyboard

mbgower: Wilco is correct, it's hard to know exactly it is, but I agree it's there in Keyboad patterns

Wilco: one could we could potentially though, to make some distinction dialog opens by users & content authors
... like dialog automatically pops up and dialog opened from any link by the user

<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on exception

Wilco: this may be going to make it understand for developers like trapping focus into the non-modal dialogs

<jon_avila> I thought we were talking about the initial positions

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept examples added in PR 3043 to address issue 2809

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to narrow down to the question

Chuck: Are we focusing on this question or going broader this question to come to resolution?

Wilco: Are we making developers to understand or worse in focus order for non-modals?

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept examples added in PR 3043, leave issue 2809 open

<Wilco> +1

<alastairc> +1

<Laura> +1

<mbgower> The PR is already made.

<Chuck> +1

+1

<jon_avila> +1

<chinshaw> +1

<mbgower> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<GN015> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept examples added in PR 3043, leave issue 2809 open

mbgower: In this PR, there's another one coming, tagged Wilco on this

Question 2 - Change wording on 3.3.7 Accessible Authentication's exceptions #2850

AlastairC: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2850

<Chuck> Question 2 has already been addressed.

Question 3 - One-time-passcodes and the test for when an activity requires 'transcription' #2866

AlastairC: on Gundula's question, we are saying it fails, as it's not copy-paste the password, but multiple steps to avoid substantial cognitive effort. does that answer?

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask Gundala if should add "and so fails this SC"

Gundula: still seeing some concern over the security issue

<mbgower> which paragraph are we talking about? I don't see this in the PR

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3046

Wilco: so copy paste is never allowed?

AlastairC: yes, on cross devices..

mbgower: I totally go with Wilco, it's a lot of situation, how someone doing testing can say authentication is passed? not sure how we provide guidance on that

<mbgower> I think it's an improvement

AlastairC: emailing itself is not recommended due to security

Wilco: i don't have an answer here, i think we can never allow copy paste from cross device..

AlastairC: copy pasting from local sources can be reliable, but from cross devices are not reliable
... need somebody to work on this seperately

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3046 and PR 2618 to address issue 2866

Wilco: i can open a seperate issue if that works

<kirkwood> agreed it should not say “copying multiple times”

mbgower: I think it should not say 'copying multiple items', it should say 'copying multiple devices'

<kirkwood> you can now copy across device with ios

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3046 and PR 2618 and leave issue 2866 open

<kirkwood> (apple)

AlastairC: cross device aspect is more imp, the e.g. people can bring up on say copying from my mobile, immediately pasting on my laptop

<mbgower> ok

<Wilco> +1 to the PRs

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3046 and PR 2618 and leave issue 2866 open

<Rachael> +1

<chinshaw> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Chuck> +1

<Laura> +1

<GN015> +1

<ShawnT> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<AWK> +1

+1

<jon_avila> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept amended PR 3046 and PR 2618 and leave issue 2866 open

Question 4 - Target size - "in vertically set text" #2996

AlastairC: There is a small editorial PR https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3047
... most people agreed

<mbgower> +1

<Chuck> prposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3047 to address issue 2996.

GN: I'd love to learn how it'll be writing from bottom to top..

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3047 to address issue 2996.

<alastairc> +1

<Chuck> +1

AlastairC: may be this question is for internationalization people, though I would never argue Richard about this.

<chinshaw> +1

<Laura> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1 but i think bottom to top is typo

<ShawnT> +1

<Raf> +1

<GN015> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

+1

<Rachael> +1

<kirkwood> +1

<Wilco> +1

<GreggVan> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept PR 3047 to address issue 2996.

Question 5 - Programmatically Determined example describes outdated direct parsing of markup #3001

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/3034

<Zakim> Chuck, you wanted to say I have no idea how to craft a resolution for this

<Chuck> +1 it doesn't matter

AlastairC: Most people thinking we should follow same approach for 2.2
... removing parsing, as it's not helping from accessibility point

Question 5: Note and / or removal for 4.1.1 in WCAG 2.0/2.1

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does)

Wilco: what's the process of publishing, publishing 2.1 and 2.0 after 2.2 are done?

<mbgower> It would be good to detail this sequence of events as part of the Resolution

<mbgower> +1

<jon_avila> I don't think this would solve the MS issue though as standard refer to dated versions - but it would certainly provide consistency and may help those regulating.

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does), we will CFC before 2.2 goes to REC

<bruce_bailey> EN 301 549

<Wilco> +1

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does), we will CFC before 2.2 goes to PR

<Wilco> +1

<Chuck> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does), we will CFC before 2.2 goes to REC

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to ask if comment available ?

jon_avila: not sure how it seems to be delegating to the authority w3c, whether they can go back to prev wcag versions in 2018, as it's not clear to me in terms of regulations

<Zakim> bruce_bailey, you wanted to say i have inquired about errata...

bruce_bailey: first i want to say, this will not affect the regulations for w3c

<alastairc> proposed RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does), we will CFC before 2.2 goes to PR

<alastairc> Plus /minus 1s please...

<Wilco> +1

<bruce_bailey> U.S. Access Board citation is to dated publication, so errata is not picked up.

<Chuck> +1

<Rachael> +1

<jaunita_george> +1

<GreggVan> +1

<AWK> +1

<jon_avila> +1

<SuzanneTaylor> +1

<bruce_bailey> That is, errata published *after* citation

+1

<mbgower> +1

<bruce_bailey> +1

<chinshaw> +1

RESOLUTION: Remove the SC text and leave a note (as 2.2 does), we will CFC before 2.2 goes to PR

I'll have to end meeting for a conflict, will generate minutes after some time. thanks!

<GreggVan> Even if it doesn't help everyone -- it will help many. AND we should date our Errata.

<jon_avila> Thank you all.

<alastairc> RRSAgent make minutes

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/Ben_Tikkyer/Ben_Tillyer/
Succeeded: s/lso/Also/
Succeeded: s/though I would never argue with this/though I would never argue Richard about this/
Default Present: jaunita_george, Ben_Tillyer, SuzanneTaylor, Jennie, Lauriat, Francis_Storr, Cyborg, jon_avila, Poornima, alastairc, Chuck, Wilco, Makoto, ShawnT, JenStrickland, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, shadi, GreggVan, joweismantel, AWK, mbgower, ChrisLoiselle, sarahhorton, Corey, Hinshaw, kirkwood, Azlan, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, .99, GN
Present: jaunita_george, Ben_Tillyer, SuzanneTaylor, Jennie, Lauriat, Francis_Storr, Cyborg, jon_avila, Poornima, alastairc, Chuck, Wilco, Makoto, ShawnT, JenStrickland, bruce_bailey, MichaelC, shadi, GreggVan, joweismantel, AWK, mbgower, ChrisLoiselle, sarahhorton, Corey, Hinshaw, kirkwood, Azlan, jeanne, Rachael, Laura_Carlson, .99, GN, Corey Hinshaw, GN015
Regrets: Detlev, ToddL, JayM
Found Scribe: SuzanneTaylor
Inferring ScribeNick: SuzanneTaylor
Found Scribe: Laura
Inferring ScribeNick: Laura
Found Scribe: SuzanneTaylor
Inferring ScribeNick: SuzanneTaylor
Found Scribe: Poornima
Inferring ScribeNick: Poornima
Scribes: SuzanneTaylor, Laura, Poornima
ScribeNicks: SuzanneTaylor, Laura, Poornima

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.)