23-mediafrag-minutes.html 22.8 KB

Raw Blame History Permalink

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<html lang='en' xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<head>
  <meta name="generator" content=
  "HTML Tidy for Linux (vers 6 November 2007), see www.w3.org" />

  <title>Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference -- 23 Jun
  2010</title>
  <link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
  "http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/base.css" />
  <link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
  "http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/public.css" />
  <link type="text/css" rel="STYLESHEET" href=
  "http://www.w3.org/2004/02/minutes-style.css" />
  <meta content="Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference"
  name="Title" />
  <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=
  "Content-Type" />
</head>

<body>
  <p><a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img src=
  "http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home" alt="W3C" border="0" height=
  "48" width="72" /></a></p>

  <h1>Media Fragments Working Group Teleconference</h1>

  <h2>23 Jun 2010</h2>

  <p><a href=
  'http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jun/0052.html'>
  Agenda</a></p>

  <p>See also: <a href=
  "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-irc">IRC log</a></p>

  <h2><a name="attendees" id="attendees">Attendees</a></h2>

  <div class="intro">
    <dl>
      <dt>Present</dt>

      <dd>Raphael, Silvia, Michael, Yves, Jack, Davy, Erik</dd>

      <dt>Regrets</dt>

      <dd>Conrad</dd>

      <dt>Chair</dt>

      <dd>Raphael/Erik</dd>

      <dt>Scribe</dt>

      <dd>raphael</dd>
    </dl>
  </div>

  <h2>Contents</h2>

  <ul>
    <li>
      <a href="#agenda">Topics</a>

      <ol>
        <li><a href="#item01">1. Admin</a></li>

        <li><a href="#item02">2. Follow up of the ACTIONS</a></li>

        <li><a href="#item03">3. Review of the whole
        document</a></li>

        <li><a href="#item04">4. ISSUE-17</a></li>

        <li><a href="#item05">5. AOB</a></li>
      </ol>
    </li>

    <li><a href="#ActionSummary">Summary of Action Items</a></li>
  </ul>
  <hr />

  <div class="meeting">
    <p class='phone'></p>

    <p class='phone'></p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; Date: 23 June
    2010</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; Agenda: <a href=
    "http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jun/0052.html">
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-fragment/2010Jun/0052.html</a></p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>scribe</cite>&gt; scribe: raphael</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>scribe</cite>&gt; scribenick:
    raphael</p>

    <h3 id="item01">1. Admin</h3>

    <p class='phone'>PROPOSED to accept the minutes of the 6th F2F
    meeting</p>

    <p class='phone'><a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/15-mediafrag-minutes.html</a></p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>davy</cite>&gt; `+1</p>

    <p class='phone'><a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-mediafrag-minutes.html">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-mediafrag-minutes.html</a></p>

    <p class='phone'>+1</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>jackjansen</cite>&gt; +1</p>

    <p class='phone'>Minutes are accepted</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>erik</cite>&gt; +1</p>

    <h3 id="item02">2. Follow up of the ACTIONS</h3>

    <p class='phone'>ACTION-174?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; ACTION-174 -- Yves
    Lafon to produce the common syntax block -- due 2010-06-22 --
    OPEN</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; <a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/174">
    http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/174</a></p>

    <p class='phone'>close ACTION-174</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; ACTION-174 Produce
    the common syntax block closed</p>

    <p class='phone'>From Silvia:</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>scribe:</cite> Section 4.1 has the
    following bit of ABNF:</p>

    <p class='phone'>namevalues = namevalue *( "&amp;" namevalue
    )</p>

    <p class='phone'>namevalue = name [ "=" value ]</p>

    <p class='phone'>name = fragment - "&amp;" - "="</p>

    <p class='phone'>value = fragment - "&amp;"</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> actually, we should remove
    this block<br />
    ... this section is both invalid and un-needed<br />
    ... so the whole group agrees that this section should be
    removed</p>

    <h3 id="item03">3. Review of the whole document</h3>

    <p class='phone'>ACTION-178?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; ACTION-178 --
    Silvia Pfeiffer to review the complete document, remove
    unnecessary editorial notes before publication -- due
    2010-06-23 -- OPEN</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; <a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/178">
    http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/tracker/actions/178</a></p>

    <p class='phone'>close ACTION-178</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; ACTION-178 Review
    the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes
    before publication closed</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> what do we say about
    RTSP processing?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> for LC we should not detail
    the processing of this<br />
    ... good to mention that the syntax is generic<br />
    ... and not only for HTTP</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; +q</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> the messages that go over
    the protocol is protocol dependant</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>davy</cite>&gt; Note that we have a
    description on our wiki about RTSP: <a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/UA_Server_RTSP_Communication">
    http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/wiki/UA_Server_RTSP_Communication</a></p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> what we can do is to say
    how media fragments URI syntax can be mapped to RTSP
    messages<br />
    ... but don't say how, since we don't have time</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; adding "This
    specification is not defining the protocol aspect of RTSP
    handling of media-fragment."</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> we could just re-use this
    wiki page and adapt it to the latest syntax</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> problem is that we will
    need to test this through implementation</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; +q</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> while a WG note would not
    need to be tested</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> but we have an
    implementation of this!</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> I know people who also
    wants to have an implementation ... so it must not be
    difficult</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> I think RTSP is useful ...
    but I suggest to have it in another document<br />
    ... but I want to speed up the process<br />
    ... so I prefer to have another document</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; if we think it is
    hard to include RTSP after LC, I think it would make more sense
    to include it now</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> I think it is a good idea
    to put it into another document<br />
    ... let me explain why it is a bad idea to include RTSP
    handling at *this* stage<br />
    ... the fact that we have one working implementation does not
    mean we understand fully the mechanism</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; RTSP has been
    developed with the fragment functionality as part of the
    protocol</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> except if Davy ensures he
    got all issues fixed</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> I'm also in favor of
    putting this into another document ... and take our time to
    check how it works</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; how hard is it to
    include this later into the document then, when we make it a
    separate document now?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; why would it delay
    the LC?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; no, not to remove it
    later - to update it later with more information</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; delay the LC as we
    would need to review it</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; I am not happy in
    adding at the last minute something as big as that without
    _any_ review before</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; and reviewing
    introduces delays</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; we don't know
    everything about caching right now either - there will be more
    updates necessary</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; so, if it is easy to
    add things later, I am fine</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>erik</cite>&gt; +1 to Silvia</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; but if that would be
    a problem, I object to making it a separate document, because
    we are ripping apart where ppl can find information about media
    fragments</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; why?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I would need to tell
    ppl: find the spec of URI fragments here, but how to use it
    with rtsp in this other doc</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; if someone want to use
    mediafrag in protocol 'bar' later on does it mean that we will
    have to revise our doc to add this new protocol?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Michael:</cite> we can include it and
    ask the community for feedback</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; no silvia, the rtsp
    spec will refer to the uri syntax one</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; it's not like rtsp
    is a new protocol</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; we expect people to be
    smart enough to understand what they read no?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; Yves: it's still 2
    docs</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> not at LC stage, you're
    supposed to have scope the spec</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; and?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; do we want to merge
    rfc2616 and 3987 as well in our doc?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> this discussion is
    procedural<br />
    ... we all agree we will like to have rtsp in the spec<br />
    ... the question is whether adding it now, add a cost of 2
    months we don't have!<br />
    ... does it give us enough benefits ?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Erik:</cite> what is wrong of adding it
    now, few days of copy-pasting<br />
    ... and review it during LC</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I agree</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; it also gives ppl
    from that community a need to review it</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> it is not healthy to add
    things not which hasn't been reviewed<br />
    ... LC should have been published 6 months ago</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> do we want to be LCWD asap
    or do we want to cover RTSP?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> the second document is not
    that important ... since under my understanding, the problem of
    implementing with RTSP is trivial<br />
    ... and if it turns to not be trivial, then it will fit a 2.0
    version of the spec</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>erik</cite>&gt; again +1 to Silvia</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> but if if is trivial,
    then why not including it now in the document</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> what I have said is that
    with *my* understanding, it is trivial<br />
    ... but I might be very wrong</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> problem is that you will
    not trust a note<br />
    ... and this is pushing people of our spec<br />
    ... i'm unhappy in splitting the document into multiple
    docs</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> looking at the
    charter<br />
    ... "The Group will focus on developing a mechanism to uniquely
    identify a temporal fragment within an audio or video object,
    that is independent of the underlying audio or video codec in
    use, and will also investigate the delivery of the requested
    resource to allow full or partial media retrieval using at
    least the HTTP protocol. "</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; zaim, mute me</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> do we really need to
    understand all the bits of the spec?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Erik:</cite> I fully agree with what
    Silvia has said</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> looking at our traffic on
    our mailing list, not that many emails about rtsp<br />
    ... we haven't received enough attention and review on this
    point</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>jackjansen</cite>&gt; same point as
    yves</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; rtsp got less review
    because it was much simpler and needed no discussion</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> the wiki page has never
    been included in the doc so that might explain the lack of
    attention</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> having everything in one
    doc is silly anyway, even html5 is slowly moving away from
    this<br />
    ... I don't see studies that people will not look at 2
    documents</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> this is a problem of
    compactness</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; proposal: could we
    have a few days of review for the rtsp section and then make
    the decision?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; by when do we need
    to make the decision to move the doc to LC?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> the documents is a
    workaround solution</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; one more week should
    be enough to learn more about rtsp and make a decision either
    way</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> the problem is not looking
    at our wiki page which is ok<br />
    ... the problem is looking at the rtsp spec<br />
    ... and make sure we are not saying stupid things</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I think you can read
    the rtsp spec within an hour, honestly</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I would look at
    it</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> yes, I have already used
    rtsp implementations</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> I wonder Yves how would
    you rate your knowledge of rtsp?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> i think for temporal
    fragment over rtsp, there is no problem<br />
    ... we might have problems with other dimensions<br />
    ... as Yves said, the problem of cutting the media depending on
    the codec is the same<br />
    ... we just have the protocol to fix</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> I have also a number of
    concerns about smpte time codes for rtsp</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; raphael, I would
    qualify it as 'very rusty'</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> rtsp does not have the
    content mapping<br />
    ... should we define it as well for rtsp ?<br />
    ... I think there are things that MUST been discussed
    before<br />
    ... and I don't think it is feasible in one week</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> assuming we do not know
    all the details, does not make sense to at least include what
    we have now in the spec?<br />
    ... actually, the best way to have feedback on what we have is
    to include it in the document<br />
    ... afterwards, we might take out this part if we have not
    enough technical knowledge<br />
    ... I see this section as mature as others</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> I think I disagree with
    this latest statement</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; I am strongly against
    putting a whole new section that didn't get _any_ review and
    raises lots of question in a LC document</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; in a regular WD yes,
    but not on a LC</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; what comes after
    LC?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>jackjansen</cite>&gt; Example of
    problem witrh rtsp: interaction with section 10.0 REDIRECT</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I think we will have
    a second LC anyway</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> I think we should not do
    it, not include rtsp into this doc<br />
    ... we need much serious thoughts</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>jackjansen</cite>&gt; <a href=
    "http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2326#page-39">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2326#page-39</a></p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; ok, I won't stand in
    the way</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; we can have multiple
    LC for sure</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; even CR-&gt;LC
    phases</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>Yves</cite>&gt; note that I completely
    agree to have a new WD for RTSP, that we can fasttrack if the
    doc is in good shape</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> I suggest to add a link
    towards a wiki page to get feedback</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>mhausenblas</cite>&gt; +1</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; isnt' that like
    admitting we aren't finished with the doc for LC?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> and a generic sentence
    stating the importance of the genericity of the URI syntax</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; ok, fair enough</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>erik</cite>&gt; +1</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I retract my
    objection</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>davy</cite>&gt; +1</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; 0</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> 0</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>jackjansen</cite>&gt; +1</p><a name=
    "action01" id="action01"></a>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>scribe</cite>&gt;
    <strong>ACTION:</strong> troncy to address RTSP handling,
    pointing to the wiki page for the processing, making sure the
    syntax is stated to be generic [recorded in <a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01</a>]</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; Created ACTION-179
    - Address RTSP handling, pointing to the wiki page for the
    processing, making sure the syntax is stated to be generic [on
    Raphaël Troncy - due 2010-06-30].</p>

    <p class='phone'>Section 7.4 should it be removed?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>ALL:</cite> yes</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> ok, I will remove it</p>

    <p class='phone'>close ACTION-178</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; ACTION-178 Review
    the complete document, remove unnecessary editorial notes
    before publication closed</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; requirements have
    been turned into normal text</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; done :)</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; but the requirements
    document is referenced at the start of the document</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> multiple tracks, is it
    all clear now?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> no, sometimes we say one,
    and sometimes multiple ones<br />
    ... it must be consistent<br />
    ... my question is: do we translate this into one header in the
    request?<br />
    ... the question is do we want to have multiple occurrences of
    "track" in the URI and a single one in the header?</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> do we need to escape
    semi-colon?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; question is: do we
    agree that there are several "track" parameters in the URI, but
    only a single on in the HTTP header with the different tracks
    separated by semicolon</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> mutiple tracks mean many
    many many packets<br />
    ... we cannot handle this in a multi-part message response</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Davy:</cite> the response might be a
    redirect<br />
    ... the problem is for the request</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> the plan is to use the
    comma in the request as a separator</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> people are aware that the
    fact we are using %escaping UTF-8 strings in the headers?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; I can make these
    changes, yes</p>

    <h3 id="item04">4. ISSUE-17</h3>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Silvia:</cite> we are waiting for i18n
    answer</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Jack:</cite> we need to take a decision
    when they reply</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Yves:</cite> it will be a LC issue<br />
    ... no problem</p>

    <h3 id="item05">5. AOB</h3>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Raphael:</cite> Does WebM fit in our
    table?</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>silvia</cite>&gt; thanks,
    bye!</p><a name="action02" id="action02"></a>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>scribe</cite>&gt;
    <strong>ACTION:</strong> davy to add the WebM codec into our
    fitting table [recorded in <a href=
    "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02</a>]</p>

    <p class='irc'>&lt;<cite>trackbot</cite>&gt; Created ACTION-180
    - Add the WebM codec into our fitting table [on Davy Van
    Deursen - due 2010-06-30].</p>

    <p class='phone'><cite>Summary:</cite> document edited once
    more today, and then LCWD issue, publication hopefully
    tomorrow</p>

    <p class='phone'>[meeting adjourned]</p>
  </div>

  <h2><a name="ActionSummary" id="ActionSummary">Summary of Action
  Items</a></h2><!-- Action Items -->
  <strong>[NEW]</strong> <strong>ACTION:</strong> davy to add the
  WebM codec into our fitting table [recorded in <a href=
  "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action02</a>]<br />

  <strong>[NEW]</strong> <strong>ACTION:</strong> troncy to address
  RTSP handling, pointing to the wiki page for the processing,
  making sure the syntax is stated to be generic [recorded in
  <a href=
  "http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01">http://www.w3.org/2010/06/23-mediafrag-minutes.html#action01</a>]<br />

  &nbsp;<br />
  [End of minutes]<br />
  <hr />

  <address>
    Minutes formatted by David Booth's <a href=
    "http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm">
    scribe.perl</a> version 1.135 (<a href=
    "http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/">CVS log</a>)<br />
    $Date: 2010/06/23 10:14:07 $
  </address>

  <div class="diagnostics"></div>
</body>
</html>