W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > June 2010

Re: review of HTML5 differences from HTML4

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:18:11 +0200
To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vequn5fv64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:30:46 +0200, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>  
> On 6/8/10 2:53 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> It's intended for authors. It's not intended to be the definitive
>> reference, but just a quick overview of things.
> Personally, I don't think the document achieves this at the moment. It  
> raises more questions than it answers... though, when you answer my  
> questions below *in the document*, I will be one very happy author and  
> will feel that the document does meet its intention:)

Raising questions is fine. It gives people a reason to explore things  
further. If a quick overview of things did not raise questions, frankly,  
I'd be surprised.

>> Reading your comments I think you may actually be interested in a
>> difference effort:
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale
> That "effort" is pretty thin on content, manpower, authority and  
> rationale - though I'm sure the intentions are good. Also, the rationale  
> seems pretty self serving. If you find something useful in the  
> Rationale, then perhaps you should fold it into this authoritative W3C  
> document.

a) You can help out, it's a wiki! b) Rationale should probably be a  
separate document. It is rather different from this document.

>>>> Some features were introduced in
>>>> specifications; others were introduced in software releases.
>>> Like which? and why?
>> I don't think that's of relevance to this document.
> If that was not relevant, I would not have asked.

Nice retort, but you are not to decide what is relevant :-)

>>>> In some
>>>> respects, implementations and author practices have converged with
>>>> each other and with specifications and standards, but in other ways,
>>>> they continue to diverge.
>>> The above is weak on it's own (it reads like a personal observation).
>>> Can you expand on it and give concrete examples.
>> I don't think that's of relevance to this document. It's really just an
>> introduction, not a definitive reference.
> As way of introduction, the above assertion basically frames the  
> rationale for the document. Without concrete examples, it just sounds  
> like rhetorical grandstanding.

It just illustrates things are complex.

>>>> HTML4 became a W3C Recommendation in 1997. While it continues to serve
>>>> as a rough guide to many of the core features of HTML, it does not
>>>> provide enough information to build implementations that interoperate
>>>> with each other and, more importantly, with a critical mass of
>>>> deployed content.
>>> This may be generally accepted by some members of the community, yet
>>> it does not let outsiders know what what actually wrong with the way
>>> HTML4 was specified. This is really important, because it underpins
>>> why HTML5 is such a large spec and why it covers so much stuff. Can
>>> you please clearly list the deficiencies which HTML4 has and how HTML5
>>> has attempted to overcome those (i.e., what processes are actually in
>>> place to avoid the mistakes of HTML4 being remade in HTML5).
>> I don't think that's of relevance to this document, but it would
>> certainly be interesting to have such a document. The audience of such a
>> document would not be authors though, I would think.
> I don't see how this cannot be relevant to this document. This, in fact,  
> _is_ the whole point of this document. That is at the core of the  
> fundamental difference between HTML4 and HTML5. I would again request  
> that the document clearly list the deficiencies which HTML4 has and how  
> HTML5 has attempted to overcome those.

It is not at all the whole point of this document. The point is to point  
out what is new and has changed compared to HTML4, because authors know  
HTML4. Explaining how HTML4 was completely inadequate is interesting  
research and might be of use to people writing specifications, but for  
everyone else it is moot as we have HTML5 now.

>>>> The HTML5 draft reflects an effort, started in 2004, to study
>>>> contemporary HTML implementations and deployed content.
>>> Where is this study published? What methodology was used to gather the
>>> results and draw conclusions? Where is the data available?
>> To study something does not mean something was published:
>> http://www.answers.com/study
> Thanks for the link. That is true that publishing is not a requirement,  
> but then how did the working group communicate its motivations for  
> getting this work forward? To imply a "study" was conducted also implies  
> that the results of that study were communicated to the community and  
> that the community agreed that something was needed.
> If you can't produce evidence of who conducted the study and how the  
> results of that study were communicated to the community, then you must  
> remove this section.
> If it helps jog your memory, studies where done like this one:  
> http://code.google.com/webstats/, which has evidently [1] underpinned  
> some of decisions made by the editor of HTML5 - and shared within the  
> community to sway opinion. Please reference it as at least one study.
> [1] "http://code.google.com/webstats/" site:http://w3.org/
> The reason it must be listed is that, as I mentioned above, people  
> should be able to ascertain the historical decisions that lead to the  
> creation of HTML5. People should also be able to scrutinize the  
> methodology and results that was used in the study (particularly the one  
> above, even if it only played a small role in the overall effort).

It is a single sentence explaining something. Of course I know about  
/webstats/ and the tens (if not hundreds) of issues I reported with HTML5  
over the course of five years with respect to it matching or not matching  
contemporary implementations. But this is a single sentence and making  
more out of it is not worth it. The /webstats/ document will be around for  
a long time, W3C Bugzilla will be around as long as the /TR/ pages most  
likely, and the HTML and WHATWG mailing list archives probably too. Tons  
of research can be done on our research.

>> But you can find data scattered throughout the web. I'm sure if you ask
>> on #whatwg on Freenode people can provide you pointers.
> For historical purposes of this document, that's not helpful. Those  
> people and channels won't be there forever. This document will hang  
> around for a long time.

See above.

>>>> 3. Improves markup for documents.
>>> In what way? point 3 seems out of context with the rest of the points
>>> listed here.
>> Syntax (1), processing models (2), language for documents (3), and APIs
>> for applications (4) does not seem out of context to me. They roughly
>> represent the goals.
> Ok, make sure that is clear in the document.

What exactly would you like me to change?

>> It's just a summary that not all is settled yet. If authors care about
>> the details they can join the HTML WG.
> That's both unfair and exclusive. The cost of a few sentences on your  
> part VS a person having to receive hundreds of emails a month. You know,  
> not everyone is privileged to get paid to work on standardization and  
> read WG emails. Please have the decency to provide appropriate  
> information.

Ok, I removed the issues and mentioned that they are linked from the HTML5  

>>>> 1.2. Backwards Compatible
>>>> HTML5 is defined in a way that it is backwards compatible with the way
>>>> user agents handle deployed content.
>>> How does it achieve this?
>> I don't think that's relevant for authors. They just need to know that
>> it is.
> I'm an author. It's relevant to me. Please put it in.

How is the next paragraph not a good enough example for this actually?

>>> s/this specification/the HTML5 specification/
>> It does not say "this".
> s/the specification/the HTML5 specification/

Because you asked so nicely.

>>>> This means that authors
>>>> cannot use the isindex or the plaintext element, but user agents are
>>>> required to support them in a way that is compatible with how these
>>>> elements need to behave for compatibility with deployed content.
>>> The above is just an example of various possible strange elements,  
>>> right?
>> Right.
> Please make that clear if you have not done so.


>> I don't follow this. How can authors not conform to requirements?
> I'm asking you that exact question: How can a human being, made of flesh  
> and blood (and not markup), conform to a requirement? And if they don't  
> conform, why does that matter (i.e., what are the consequences, if any)?
> Please answer that clearly in the document.

I don't want to explain what it means for a human being to follow a rule.  
That seems inane.

>>>> 1.3. Development Model
>>>> The HTML5 specification will not be considered finished before there
>>>> are at least two complete implementations of the specification.
>>> What does this mean in practice? How will completeness be shown?
>> Clarified.
> "The HTML5 specification will not be considered finished before there  
> are at least two complete implementations of the specification. A test  
> suite will be used to measure completeness of the implementations. This  
> approach differs from previous versions of HTML. The goal is to ensure  
> that the specification is implementable, and usable by authors once it  
> is finished."
> I still don't understand what is different? HTML4 has a test suite?

Fair enough. Clarified some more.

> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/HTML401/current/
> What is it that this WG is doing differently (process-wise)? Please  
> clarify and maybe point to some processes that will ensure completeness.  
> E.g.: "The WG aims to produce around 20,000 tests over the next 7 years.  
> Company X, Y, and Z have committed xxx number of resources to this  
> monstrous task, as well as millions of dollars and a yacht on which test  
> makers will be kept chained to computers until it's done, etc..."

I hope what I did is ok. I'm not too interested in making it too complex  
and trying to predict the future and all.

>>>> for this syntax which are largely compatible with popular
>>>> implementations.
>>> Please reference the implementations on which the parsing is based.
>>> And please explain why those implementations (be it browser or search
>>> engine) were chosen as the basis on which the parsing algorithm was
>>> based on.
>> I don't think this is of relevance to this document, but it would sure
>> be interesting.
> I disagree. It's common knowledge that parsing is mostly based on IE6. I  
> don't see the problem with mentioning IE6 there.
> If the common knowledge is wrong, then this is the document that has to  
> set the record straight.

As I explained before this document is not about explaining how HTML5  
design decisions were arrived at.

For this particular piece of information maybe you should have a look at  
the acknowledgments section of HTML5. Why do you think that is common  
knowledge by the way?

>>>> User agents must use these rules for resources that
>>>> have the text/html media type. Here is an example document that
>>>> conforms to the HTML syntax:
>>> I'm not sure why this example is here? What does this have to do with
>>> parsing? How is the parsing of this document any different from HTML4?
>> It illustrates what was just explained. The DOCTYPE is different. <meta
>> charset> is too.
> Ok, then please add "(note the differences in <doctype> and <meta  
> charset>)."
> Better yet, you should have a side by side comparison of the two. You  
> could make the distinction much more clear if you showed a minimally  
> conforming document, like this:
> <!doctype html>
> <html>
> <meta charset="UTF-8">
> <title>Example document</title>
> <p>Example paragraph
> The above example totally valid/conforming (http://html5.validator.nu/)  
> and really illustrates the differences - and gets rid of all those  
> redundant closing tags!

HTML4 allowed that too so you have the same amount of differences. I don't  
think detailed comparison of these differences is interesting. This is  
enough for authors to just copy and paste and that is probably the most  
useful bit of that section.

>> This document is not intended for such depth.
> Ok, at least make sure you link to the relevant section in HTML5.

I'm only doing that for the elements at the moment. Maybe once we go to CR  
or something stable like that I could add a bunch more links.

>>>> authors have three means of setting the
>>>> character encoding:
>>>> * At the transport level. By using the HTTP Content-Type header
>>>> for instance.
>>>> * Using a Unicode Byte Order Mark (BOM) character at the start of
>>>> the file. This character provides a signature for the encoding used.
>>>> * Using a meta element with a charset attribute that specifies the
>>>> encoding within the first 512 bytes of the document. E.g. <meta
>>>> charset="UTF-8"> could be used to specify the UTF-8 encoding. This
>>>> replaces the need for <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
>>>> content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> although that syntax is still
>>>> allowed.
>>> How is this different from HTML4?
>> <meta charset> was not in HTML4.
> Ok, please make sure that is clear. AS in "What is different in HTML5 is  
> the addition of the charset attribute to the meta element." or something.

It already says it replaces the need for the older syntax. I think it is  

>>>> 2.2. The DOCTYPE
>>>> The HTML syntax of HTML5 requires a DOCTYPE to be specified to ensure
>>>> that the browser renders the page in standards mode.
>>> What is this "standards mode"?
>> Most authors reading this document will already be familiar with the  
>> term.
> Half the time you seem to assume authors knows little, then the other  
> time you assume they know a lot.

Maybe, or maybe you have a knowledge gap somewhere. Hard to tell. This is  
the first time someone told me this though.

> I recommend you print out a picture of me, and put it next to you when  
> writing. Then you can ask, "would Marcos know this?... probably not"...  
> or "Will Marcos ask me stupid questions about this?... probably."

The typical author that works with HTML on a day-to-day basis is the more  
interesting case I think. You might be glad to know your picture is on my  
dartboard, though, albeit somewhat punctured ;-P

>>> What did this longer DOCTYPE look like, so we can see the differences
>>> from HTML4?
>> It is assumed you already know HTML4.
> That is a fair assumption to make. It's nice to show it because it  
> drives the point home: As in, "OMG! look how complex and stupid that  
> thing that did nothing was!".

I'll leave that to advocacy :-)

>>>> With HTML5 this is no longer the case and the see
>>>> DOCTYPE is only needed to enable standards mode for documents written
>>>> using the HTML syntax. Browsers already do this for <!DOCTYPE html>.
>>> So, basically, it's required to identify a document as HTML5? This is
>>> unclear because the whole standards mode thing is undefined. You need
>>> to expand this section to show how it actually works and explain that
>>> an old doc type will still trigger HTML5 features if available
>>> (presumably).
>> Since that is non-conforming I don't think it's relevant for authors.
> Well, for authors who have had years of indoctrination about <!DOCTYPE>  
> it is. Bottom line is, that the doctype doesn't enable features.

Yes it does.

> And, not even case matters when it comes to the doctype. It is important  
> to make it clear that <!DocType> is <!DOCtype> is <!docTYPE> and people  
> need to stop being religious about it (which is what HTML5 finally  
> codifies).

This is a completely different point from your first. Authors will just  
copy a DOCTYPE and be happy. No need to confuse anyone with  

>>>> 2.3. MathML and SVG
>>> You should start with "Unlike HTML4," or something...
>> Why, it already says "of HTML5".
> It's a "differences" document: it gives rationale as to why the  
> paragraph is there.

I think "of HTML5" does that.

>>> On what grounds was the addition of the section element made? what was
>>> lacking in HTML4?
>> That seems like something for this document:
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale
> To me, it seems like something that should be in this document. Also,  
> I'm not interested in the WHATWG HTML spec, I am interested in the W3C  
> HTML spec. It's already terribly confusing that there are two versions,  
> and the fact that the WHATWG version keeps growing outside the scope of  
> the W3C version might make the scope of the WHATWG rationale larger than  
> W3C HTML5.

Lets cross that bridge when it becomes an actual problem.

>> Since you are asking the same question for all new elements I have
>> omitted those questions from my reply.
> For each, the questions still apply.


>>>> mark represents a run of marked text.
>>> What's "marked text"?
>> Clarified.
> Is the clarification the link? (if so, I'm ok with that).

No. You might seen it does not say "marked text" anymore?

>>>> The a and area elements have a new attribute called ping that
>>>> specifies a space-separated list of URLs which have to be pinged when
>>>> the hyperlink is followed. Currently user tracking is mostly done
>>>> through redirects. This attribute allows the user agent to inform
>>>> users which URLs are going to be pinged as well as giving
>>>> privacy-conscious users a way to turn it off.
>>>> *
>>>> The area element, for consistency with the a and link elements,
>>>> now also has the hreflang and rel attributes.
>>> What does it do?
>> See HTML4 (well, or HTML5 if you're not familiar with HTML4).
> Put the above into the doc. Or at least link to the attributes... though  
> I still don't know what they do :(

If you don't know HTML4 you should read HTML4 first. (Though really  
starting with HTML5 in that case might be easier.)

I might add links later when everything is stable and the moon looks funny.

>>>> The meta element has a charset attribute now as this was already
>>>> widely supported and provides a nice way to specify the character
>>>> encoding for the document.
>>> nice way? you mean more compact?
>> I don't think changing this would improve the quality of the document.
> I wouldn't mention if it did not draw attention to itself. Otherwise,  
> retitle the document "Things Anne Thinks are Nicer in HTML5 over  
> HTML4"...

I'll consider that.

>>>> A new placeholder attribute can be specified on the input and
>>>> textarea elements.
>>>> *
>>> What does it do?
>> Clarified.
> It still says the same thing "A new placeholder attribute can be  
> specified on the input and textarea elements."?

What about the next sentence?

>>>> The fieldset element now allows the disabled attribute disabling
>>>> all its contents when specified.
>>> What does it mean "disabling all its content"? Maybe this should say
>>> something about being able to interface with the element?
>> I think it is fine as is.
> Maybe say "disabling all form elements it contains" (assuming that is  
> what it means)?


>>>> The input element has several new attributes to specify
>>>> constraints: autocomplete, min, max, multiple, pattern and step. As
>>>> mentioned before it also has a new list attribute which can be used
>>>> together with the datalist element.
>>> Why were these added?
>> That is something for this document to answer:
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale
> I think it should be answered in this document for the reasons I have  
> given above.

I think it should not. For reasons placed at a similar location.

>>>> The form element has a novalidate attribute that can be used to
>>>> disable form validation submission (i.e. the form can always be
>>>> submitted).
>>> What does this do? is this a script thing?
>> See my comment on the required attribute.
> Ok, but I still don't get this one: Is this something you would use for  
> testing? Or is to to override a form with novalidate within another form?

You could have [Save Draft] and [Submit]. [Save Draft] might carry a  
novalidate attribute.

>>>> The input and button elements have formaction, formenctype,
>>>> formmethod, formnovalidate, and formtarget as new attributes. If
>>>> present, they override the action, enctype, method, novalidate, and
>>>> target attributes on the form element.
>>> Why is this significant?
>> It is a difference from HTML4.
> Fair enough. Again, it would be nice to know what motivated these  
> additions. However, a, simple "see the specification for a rationale" or  
> some link to the use cases for this new stuff... All the form stuff is  
> really interesting.

See other rationale discussions.

>>>> The menu element has two new attributes: type and label. They
>>>> allow the element to transform into a menu as found in typical user
>>>> interfaces as well as providing for context menus in conjunction with
>>>> the global contextmenu attribute.
>>> Why is this significant? You should probably talk a little about the
>>> contextmenu attribute, as you have not yet discussed it in the
>>> document. At least say you talk about it later.
>> If people are interested in this feature they will find out more about
>> it. This document is just a summary.
> It seems to be just a summary in parts, and in other parts it goes into  
> detail. Having hit other good summaries in the document, it follows that  
> summaries will be given throughout.

Apparently not.

>>>> The script element has a new attribute called async that
>>>> influences script loading and execution.
>>> How does it influence it? what for?
>> Again, this document is just summary.
> as above.
>>>> *
>>>> The html element has a new attribute called manifest that points
>>>> to an application cache manifest used in conjunction with the API for
>>>> offline Web applications.
>>> What's an "application cache manifest"?
>> See above.
> heh, recursive see above :)
>>>> *
>>>> The link element has a new attribute called sizes. It can be
>>>> used in conjunction with the icon relationship (set through the rel
>>>> attribute) to indicate the size of the referenced icon.
>>> What? icons in HTML? what's are these "icons"?
>> Favicons have been age-old.
> Maybe you should say that this is for explicitly setting the fav icon?  
> Or is there some other use case?

I clarified that sizes allows for icons of distinct resolutions. It seems  
inappropriate to expand on the use cases of the icon rel relationship here.

>>>> The ol element has a new attribute called reversed to indicate
>>>> that the list order is descending when present.
>>> s/present/presented ?
>> No.
> Ah, get it - your sentence has 3 ideas in it. That sentence should be:
> "The ol element has a new attribute called reversed. When present, it  
> indicates that the list order is descending."
> Please change it to avoid confusion and for legibility.

Boring, done.

>>>> The iframe element has three new attributes called sandbox,
>>>> seamless, and srcdoc which allow for sandboxing content, e.g. blog
>>>> comments.
>>> What does this do?
>> It's just a summary.
> Ok, please link to their definitions then in HTML5.

See the bit on links I wrote earlier.

>>> What's a "placeholder link"? What's flow content?
>> I think if people are interested in this they can find out more easily
>> enough. Not sure if an explanation would really help as it would only be
>> relevant here.
> I hold that placeholder link is ambiguous, I would like a brief  
> explanation - I had to look that one up, actually. I call that an anchor  
> (or an a href element with an id attribute). You could just say that.

But that would be wrong. Changed the text to match what HTML5 says.

>>>> The address element is now scoped by the new concept of sectioning.
>>> scoped? What does that mean?
>>> What was it before (in HTML4)?
>> Not scoped. Details are in HTML5.
> Please define or link to it.

See the bit on links I wrote earlier.

>>>> The b element now represents a span of text to be stylistically
>>>> offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance,
>>>> such as keywords in a document abstract, product names in a review, or
>>>> other spans of text whose typical typographic presentation is
>>>> emboldened.
>>>> *
>>>> The hr element now represents a paragraph-level thematic break.
>>> "paragraph-level thematic break"? What's that? Is that a restriction?
>>> Can't I user it wherever I want?
>>> What was it before (in HTML4)?
>> Authors are assumed to know what it was before. I elided all similar
>> questions.
> Isn't there some non-fancy way of saying "paragraph-level thematic  
> break"? I still don't know what it is:(

Did you look at HTML5?

>>>> The summary attribute on table. The HTML5 draft defines several
>>>> alternative solutions.
>>> Solutions to what? Please list them.
>> It already states they are in HTML5.
> ah, I get it. Please link to them. HTML5 is an 800 page monster spec and  
> searching it can be painful (like it freezes every browser and takes  
> ages to load!).

See the bit on links I wrote earlier.

>>>> The following elements are not in HTML5 because their usage affected
>>>> usability and accessibility for the end user in a negative way:
>>> In what negative way?
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale
> Doesn't help. If you insist on referencing the WHATWG wiki, then make it  
> a formal reference in this spec. Please don't answer questions for my  
> benifit, but for the benefit of all readers.

I added a reference in the changelogs section.

>>>> * frame
>>>> * frameset
>>>> * noframes
> You lied! These are not listed in http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale  
> !:) Please define this here.

It's a wiki. Fix it!

>>> So what happens to these guys in a HTML5 UA?
>> Not relevant to authors.
> How is that not relevant? I might still want to use <frame> for stuff?  
> It will still work right?

Not relevant as long as it is not allowed. At least not to this document.

>>>> 3.6. Absent Attributes
>>>> Some attributes from HTML4 are no longer allowed in HTML5. If they
>>>> need to have any impact on user agents for compatibility reasons it is
>>>> defined how they should work in those scenarios.
>>> Defined where? (e.g., as part of the parsing model?)
>> Doesn't matter to authors.
> I'm an author. It matters to me. Therefore, it matters to authors.

That's some weird logic.

> Also, how are you, or the WG, deciding what matters to authors and what  
> doesn't?

There is no point in telling authors about invalid features as the idea is  
that they are not to use them.

>>>> * rev and charset attributes on link and a.
>>>> * shape and coords attributes on a.
>>>> * longdesc attribute on img and iframe.
>>>> * target attribute on link.
>>>> * nohref attribute on area.
>>>> * profile attribute on head.
>>>> * version attribute on html.
>>>> * name attribute on img (use id instead).
>>>> * scheme attribute on meta.
>>>> * archive, classid, codebase, codetype, declare and standby
>>>> attributes on object.
>>>> * valuetype and type attributes on param.
>>>> * axis and abbr attributes on td and th.
>>>> * scope attribute on td.
>>> Why were all these dropped? I would like to know the rationale for
>>> each one.
>> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Rationale
> Not helpful. It does not cover these. Please explain.
> Also, there is no process for that Wiki. There is no heartbeat  
> requirement, or any one from any company assigned to edit it (I can see  
> from the history that Simon has edited it from time to time, but that's  
> not good enough. It has no committed editor and Opera's position is that  
> authoritative information should be coming from the W3C, not the WHATWG.)

I already explained I do not consider it to be in scope of this document.  
I pointed you to an effort that attempts to address some of these  
questions. If that does not please you maybe you should step up and do  
some work, because you are certainly not making me enthusiastic.

>>> Be nice to link to it, or at least say what the interface is?
>> I think these are all trivial enough to find within the HTML5
>> specification if you're interested. Or you can find them in blog posts,
>> journals, etc.
> Blog posts, journals, etc. get stuff wrong - all the time! W3C Schools,  
> A List Apart, Wikipedia, anyone?:) Or do you want a repeat of XHTML?!

Why do you pretend that is all what I said while you clearly quote that  
you can find it in HTML5 as well?

> So yeah, you better link to correct sections of the the spec for each of  
> the above :)

See the bit about links I wrote earlier.

>>>> 4.1. Extensions to HTMLDocument
>>>> getSelection() which returns an object that represents the
>>>> current selection(s).
>>> Just text? or markup too?
>> Ranges iirc.
> Ok, please make that clear in the doc.

I do not think that will help.

> It reads "The object it returns, exposes methods"
> The comma is strange there. But otherwise, it makes sense.

You remember you wrote the following last time, right?

# typo: returns exposes?

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 08:18:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:26 UTC