Note: This log has been edited slightly, primarily to remove interactions prior to discussion beginning in earnest, and after the meeting was adjourned. Some TAG scheduling information has also been removed.
Times are US East Coast.
[10:29:36]
<DanC> previous: 21Jan
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0193
[10:29:43]
<tim-mit> Zakim, who is here?
[10:29:44]
<Zakim> I see Stuart, TimBL, DanC, ??P8,
TBray
[10:29:53]
<Zakim> +Ian
[10:30:04]
<tim-mit> Zakim, ??P8 is Norm
[10:30:05]
<Zakim> +Norm; got it
[10:30:05]
--> Norm (~ndw@24-240-20-134.hsacorp.net) has joined #tagmem
[10:30:21]
--> TimBray (~tbray@00-50-ba-d3-1a-2d.bconnected.net) has joined
#tagmem
[10:30:28]
<Ian> DanC, I would like to have RRSAgenda
show up weekly.
[10:30:50]
<DanC> tim-mit, just say "is there anybody
here who hasn't seen the agenda?"
[10:31:01]
<TimBray> what's the incantation to
mute/unmute my phone?
[10:31:29]0:31:43]
<Zakim> +??P11
[10:31:47]
<TimBray> I thought it was #60 or some
such
[10:31:48]
<DanC> some combination of 60# and 61#
works too. (mnemonic: M0/M1)
[10:32:04]
<tim-mit> Zakim, ??P11 is Roy
[10:32:05]
<Zakim> +Roy; got it
[10:32:08]
<tim-mit> Zakim, who is here?
[10:32:09]
<Zakim> I see Stuart, TimBL, DanC, Norm,
TBray, Ian (muted), Roy
[10:33:06]
<DanC> overload? is there some presumption
that every TAG member reads every message to www-tag? I don't do that.
[10:33:47]
<Norm> it's a good question. i try to read
enough of each thread to understand it
[10:33:52]34:08]
<tim-mit>
http://www.w3.org/2002/01/28-tag
[10:34:25]10:34:37]
<Ian> * See a suggestion for TAG output
from Tim Bray. This includes a strawman approach for issuing "Findings", more
lightweight than W3C Rec process.
10:34:43]
<Zakim> +DOrchard
[10:34:50]10:34:55]10:35:13]
<Ian> TB, this is under "How we work"
[10:35:44]
<Ian> TBL: I would like to come up with an
outline of web arch and fill in the blanks.
[10:36:11]
<Ian> TBL: It's interesting to affix the
issues that arise to various branches of the outline.
[10:36:43]
<Ian> TB: When do we bring the
Recommendation process to bear?
[10:37:03]
<Ian> TB: There are probably a series of
small issues. What do we do for them?
[10:37:24]
<Ian> TBL: Once we get a number of issues
around a particular area, we can put forth a Rec.
[10:37:33]
<DanC> Q+
[10:37:34]
[10:37:35]
<DanC> q+
[10:37:36]
[10:38:09]
<DanC> q-
[10:38:09]
[10:38:34]
<Norm> Is that a "speaker queue" feature,
Dan?
[10:38:43]
<DanC> what I was gonna say (on when to do
with our findings on mime types/namespaces): update "W3C data formats"
note.
[10:38:48]
<DanC> yup, norm.
[10:38:59]
<Norm> kewl
[10:39:30]
<Ian> TBL: Are there good ideas for picking
top items?
[10:39:37]
<Ian> DC: I think TBL should pick top 5 per
meeting.
[10:39:47]
<Ian> TB: Let's pick up where we left off
last week.
[10:40:04]
[10:40:31]
<Ian> TimBL: I think we should address 21
as well: rdfms-qname-uri-mapping.
[10:40:37]
<Ian> Norm: On my hot list as well.
[10:40:48]
[10:40:51]
<Ian> DanC: We don't have an obligation to
match the throughput with the input.
[10:41:14]
<Ian> ...we should set expectations that we
will only get to 2-3 a week.
[10:41:23]
<Ian> TBL: We should be responsive,
however.
[10:41:46]
[10:42:18]
<Ian> TB: The question is which ones get
assigned issue numbers. A good way to start: they are all ignored by default,
unless someone from the TAG requests that we put on agenda.
[10:42:20]
<Ian> DanC: Seconded.
[10:42:29]
<Ian> TBL: How do we guarantee that someone
has read each message?
[10:42:34]
<Ian> DanC: We don't make that
guarantee.
[10:43:11]
<Ian> Resolved: Add #21 to issues list.
[10:43:15]
<Ian> Action IJ: Add to issues list.
[10:43:29]
<Ian> ================
[10:43:42]
<Ian> Where we were last week:
[10:44:21]
<Ian> nsMediaType-3: Relationship between
media types and namespaces?
[10:44:28]
<DanC> Re: [nsMediaType-3] Principles and
corner cases
[10:44:28]
<DanC> From: Tim Bray
(tbray@textuality.com)
[10:44:28]
<DanC> Date: Mon, Jan 21 2002
[10:44:32]
<DanC>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0177.html
[10:45:45]
<Ian> DanC: In short: first two questions
from xmlp wg were easy, last one hard.
[10:46:15]
<Ian> TB: Issue about when protocol header
says something about a resource and the resource says something else.
[10:46:33]
<DanC> re charset, TimBL and Duerst put
together a diagram http://www.w3.org/2001/04/roadmap/xml-charset.svg
[10:46:41]
<DanC> from
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/roadmap/xml-charset.n3
[10:47:02]
[10:47:31]
<Ian> TB: I don't have an SVG viewer on my
desktop.
[10:47:39]
<Ian> TBL: Amaya or a plug-in for your
browser.
[10:47:55]
<TimBray> How do you get Mozilla IRC to
look at a different port? I couldn't figure it out
[10:48:11]
<DanC> Mozilla doesn't grok other ports,
last I heard. bug.
[10:48:24]
<DanC> Q+
[10:48:25]
[10:48:41]
<DanC> to say: this diagram implies
"charset" is registered for all mime types. Zat true?
[10:49:00]
<TimBray> q+
[10:49:01]
[10:49:02]
--> Dave (~dorchard@ekgj2138y129i.bc.hsia.telus.net) has joined #tagmem
[10:49:45]
<Dave> please repost the URL for the
diagram..thx
[10:49:47]
<Ian> TBL reviews SVG diagram for
determining character encoding.
[10:49:57]
<Ian>
http://www.w3.org/2001/04/roadmap/xml-charset.svg
[10:50:34]
<Ian> TBL: This is the flow diagram that
includes the bits from MIME and from XML.
[10:50:45]
<Ian> ...I propose that we put this in our
document and send to www-tag as input.
[10:50:47]
<DanC> hmm.. you can't always tell whether
there's an xml encoding decl, can you? i.e. you have to guess an encoding and
then check for an encoding decl in that encoding, right?
[10:51:05]
<Zakim> + +1.202.234.aaaa
[10:51:24]
<DanC> Zakim, +1.202.234.aaaa is
PaulCinHotel
[10:51:25]
<Zakim> +PaulCinHotel; got it
[10:51:57]
<Ian> q+
[10:51:58]
[10:52:06]
<TimBray> Dan, I think it works; check the
XML rec appendix
[10:52:08]
<Norm> Yes, DanC, I agree. You have to
check for "<?xml" in a variety of encodings
[10:52:28]
<Ian> DanC: First choice in this flow chart
is "check if there's a charset". That presumes that charset means the same
for all mimetypes. Is that the case?
[10:52:40]
<Ian> ...afaik, parameter names are local
to each mime type.
[10:52:45]
<tim-mit> ACTION DanC check that
[10:52:55]
<TimBray> yeah, but after you've looked at
the 1st 4 bytes, you pretty well know
[10:53:19]
<Ian> DanC: The EBCDIC part: if you don't
know what the encoding is, you can never be certain that there isn't an
encoding declaration.
[10:53:36]
<Ian> TB: You have to read 4 bytes in every
charset you know, and see if there's an encoding declaration.
[10:53:41]
<Ian> TBL: The EBCDIC stuff is not
standard.
[10:53:54]
<Ian> DanC: I can make up a new encoding
right now and write an xml document in it.
[10:53:59]
<TimBray> no, you read the 1st 4 bytes
once, then see if they make sense in each encoding you know
[10:54:11]
[10:55:00]
<Ian> TB: The list you read out in
conjunction with M.D. is correct. There's a real-world difficulty - your avg
xml processor is more apt to be correct to know the encoding than the server
is to guess from the suffix of the resource locally.
[10:55:32]
--> RRSAgent (~tagmem-lo@tux.w3.org) has joined #tagmem
[10:55:32]
[10:55:43]
<Ian> TBL: What follows from flow chart:
sender shouldn't specify a charset unless absolutely sure.
[10:55:45]
<Ian> TB: Yes.
[10:56:33]
<Ian> TBL: One of the ideas about putting
the encoding at the top was that a proxy could do it.
[10:56:49]
<Ian> RF: I don't think a proxy can modify
content type.
[10:56:54]
<Ian> TBL: Can it translate charset?
[10:57:14]
<Ian> RF: If you know what the charset is,
by declaring it up front, this allows you to process media type in that
charset alone.
[10:57:37]
<Ian> ..the basic problem is that media
type scanners that are working at the level of the msg can't afford to know
the 5 bazillion rules of charset analysis.
[10:57:50]
<Ian> ...if there is a charset defined for
that particular media type, it's supposed to use it.
[10:58:05]
<Ian> ..but aside from text/*, no req that
a media type have a charset.
[10:59:21]
<DanC> TBL: thanks, that clarifies: there's
no requirement that a 3rd party be able to transcode..
[10:59:32]
<Ian> irc.w3.org: 18.29.0.64
[10:59:43]
<DanC> (i.e. change take JIS and convert to
UTF-8). could break digital dignatures etc.
[11:00:40]
<Ian> DanC: This will work if I create and
register a charset tomorrow.
[11:01:00]
<Ian> TBL: If not registered, xml spec says
assume UTF-8 or UTF-16.
[11:01:21]
<Ian> TB: If it's UTF-16 needs the bomb in
front
[11:01:59]
<Ian> [Discussion about gory details about
detecting different ascii-based charsets...]
[11:02:18]
<Ian> TB: But this is dangerous in some
cases. [Scribe didn't catch case]
[11:02:35]
<Ian> TB: I think we've almost disposed of
this issue:
[11:02:48]
<Ian> a) Do we want to make a definitive
statement on namespaces and media types? I don't want to.
[11:02:57]
<Ian> b) Should we say something about the
case where the two disagree?
[11:03:18]
<Ian> TB: I think our position probably
should be "This is an error. The MIME type is supposed to be right."
[11:03:41]
<Ian> DanC: Interesting case for me: if
text/plain and has angle brackets, please do not interpret as HTML.
[11:04:12]
<Ian> ...if I put some stuff in a file that
looks like HTML (e.g., <TITLE> in the first
200 chars) and send mime type of text/plain, I want users to see the plain
text.
[11:04:33]
<Ian> TB: Even if you label as svg or xml,
IE will render as HTML.
[11:04:59]
<Ian> PC: So, in the case of the MIME type,
sounds like you are saying that you should assume that the server is doing
the right thing.
[11:05:19]
<Ian> TB: Back in the days when everything
was HTML, it might have been a forgivable sin for the client to correct
something from the server.
[11:05:37]
<Ian> ...now with XML I think we should
take a harder stance. Also, this opens some glaring security holes.
[11:05:39]
<Ian> TBL: I agree.
[11:06:00]
<DanC> q+
[11:06:01]
[11:06:12]
<TimBray> q-
[11:06:13]
<Ian> q-
[11:06:13]
[11:06:14]
[11:06:18]
<DanC> when we decide that we're serious
about what the specs say, despite what popular software says, how can we get
webmasterish folks to pay attention to us? can we exploit the QA wing of W3C
somehow?
[11:07:07]
<Ian> PC: Are there other cases than
text/plain that are important?
[11:07:30]
<DanC> "One problem with this is that some
browsers sniff the document irrespective of MIME-type and display the content
if it looks like HTML according to some heuristic[InetSDK], Appendix A. " --
http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xh
[11:07:35]
<Ian> TB: I think it's not limited to
text/plain.
[11:07:44]
<Ian> DC: Another case is java served as
text/plain that's interpreted as java.
[11:08:06]
<Ian> DC: Microsoft SDK documents the <title> in first 200 bytes behavior.
[11:08:18]
<Ian> RF: A recent patch to MSIE removed
that feature.
[11:08:29]
<Ian> ...a recent security fix in IE.
[11:08:44]
<Ian> PC: With MS hat loosely on, I'll
track this down.
[11:08:56]
<Ian> DC: In 19 Dec version of MS SDK.
[11:09:04]
<Ian> (19 Dec 1997)
[11:10:01]
<tim-mit> q?
[11:10:02]
[11:10:09]
<Ian> DC: How do we get Webmasters to do
the right thing?
[11:10:31]
<Ian> ...can we exploite the QA wing of
W3C?
[11:10:59]
<Ian> IJ: Note "Common UA problems":
http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap
[11:11:07]
<Ian> IJ: We might have a "Common server
problems"...
[11:11:23]
<Ian> TB: W3C has a track record of not
engaging much in evangelism.
[11:11:34]
<Ian> DanC: Yes. Membership endorsed both
QA Activity and TAG.
[11:11:47]
<Ian> TBL: We do do evangelism. We don't
chase up miscreants.
[11:11:59]
<Ian> TBL: WAI is close to making lists of
offending software.
[11:12:04]
<Ian> ...QA as well.
[11:12:28]
<Ian> PC: Do we have a QA Activity
associated with Amaya?
[11:12:39]
<Ian> ...can we point people at Amaya?
[11:12:59]
<Ian> TBL: If we apply QA to Amaya, we
won't have a wide impact.
[11:13:06]
<Ian> TB: That's not an effective way to
get the word out.
[11:13:26]
<Ian> TBL: We've done evangelism for SVG by
demonstrating it in Amaya. That's effective at the AC level.
[11:13:51]
<Ian> PC: You're interested, e.g., in
getting people to do schemas the right way. On the schema home page,
[11:13:59]
<Ian> there's a link to a test suite with
10k test suites in it.
[11:14:20]
<Ian> DanC: We need to be similarly
aggressive for this.
[11:14:24]
<Ian> TBL: Having a test area is a good
idea.
[11:14:37]
[11:14:55]
<Ian> DanC: We could probably fit this test
case in the HTTP/1.1 infrastructure.
[11:15:31]
<DanC> http://jigsaw.w3.org/HTTP/
[11:16:16]
<Ian> TB: I think we have consensus on the
issues raised by the xml protocol WG.
[11:16:22]
<Ian> TBL: Proposed
[11:16:40]
<Ian> a) Start with TB text, the
aforementioned SVG diagram, and another diagram.
[11:16:49]
<Ian> b) We publish in TAG space, and
circulate pointer to chairs.
[11:17:28]
[11:18:20]
<Ian> TB: I don't know if I have write
access to Web site.
[11:19:50]
<Norm> +1 on CVS!
[11:19:57]
<Stuart> Is there a coherent set of tools
that we 'should' use?
[11:20:06]
<DanC> I'm CVS-ready today.
[11:20:06]
<Ian> IJ: Who is cvs-ready today?
[11:20:12]
<Dave> +1
[11:20:13]
[11:20:17]
<Ian> Roy, Paul
[11:20:45]
[11:21:34]
[11:21:45]
<Ian> Action TB: Put together text to
resolve first three issues.
[11:22:13]
<Ian> Issues *-[1-3]
[11:22:37]
<Ian> -----
[11:22:39]
<Ian> Action item review:
[11:22:57]
<Ian> DO: Take a first stab at writing a
policy to summarize resolution of issue w3cMediaType-1.
[11:23:20]
<Ian> Canceled since subsumed by TB's
action.
[11:23:42]
<Ian> TBL: Get editable CVS space for TAG.
Status: Pending.
[11:24:11]
<Ian> --------------------
[11:24:14]
<Ian> Upcoming meetings
[11:24:20]
<Ian> * Meeting information 12 Feb ftf now
available. Please confirm for dinner if you will be at the meeting in
person.
[11:24:20]
<Ian> *
[11:24:26]
<Ian> Regrets: DanC
[11:24:48]11:25:07]
<Ian> TB: I hope that DanC has cycles to
attend ftf meetings in the future.
[11:25:22]
<Ian> DanC: I'm booked through June.
[11:25:55]
<Ian> DanC: I expect I can manage remote
participation at upcoming meeting for a couple of hours.
[11:26:22]
<Ian> DanC: It would help to lock up a Sep
date.
[11:27:11]
<Norm> Ian, while we're talking about it;
regrets for dinner in 11 Feb; I'll be driving in the morning of 12 Feb
[11:27:22]
<Ian> thanks Norm
[11:28:19]
<Ian> Dinner 11th: TBL, SW, IJ only.
[11:28:27]
<Ian> I will follow up with respect to AB
dinner.
[11:29:17]
<Ian> ---------------
[11:29:21]
<Ian> Mondays at risk:
[11:29:35]
<Ian> * 1 April (Easter Monday), 20 May
(Victory Day in Canada), 27 May (Memorial Day in US), 3 June (Queen's Golden
Jubilee Holiday in UK), 1 July (Canada Day in Canada), 26 August (Late Summer
Holiday, UK), 11 November (Armistice Day in France).
[11:30:00]
[11:30:10]
<Ian> Proposed to keep 1 April.
[11:30:18]
<Ian> Proposed to skip 27 May
[11:30:29]
<DanC> I'd rather we just look about 1 to 3
weeks ahead for telcons
[11:30:56]
<Ian> Re 20 May: TB ok.
[11:31:20]
<Ian> DO: I think in general we need to be
flexible. I think that the TAG should go on, even if some people can't make
it.
[11:31:56]
<Ian> TBL: Any problems with Feb
meetings?
[11:32:38]
<Ian> TBL: Anyone can't make the 25th?
[11:32:43]
[11:32:46]
<Ian> TB: By default, the meetings should
go ahead.
[11:32:59]
<DanC> Ian, pls don't give daynumbers
without months, at least in writing
[11:33:15]
<Ian> Er, the context is clear: it's about
Feb.
[11:33:23]
[11:33:32]
<DanC> I object to "sender must include
[issue] in the subject line."
[11:33:43]
<Ian>
-----------------------------------
[11:33:48]
<Ian> Issue tracking and mailing list
usage
[11:34:01]
<Ian> TBL: Trying to facilitate finding
issues in the list.
[11:34:17]
<Ian> ...tools to do this automatically? Or
just rely on manual tracking (IJ and TimBL)?
[11:34:34]
<Ian> DC: If something is important,
someone will tell TBL that it's important.
[11:36:10]
<Ian> IJ: I'd like to set expectations that
requests for broad reviews will likely be ignored; specific issues are more
likely to get attention.
[11:36:12]
<DanC> someone in the TAG, in
particular.
[11:36:23]
<Ian> PC: I'd like requests for review to
include links to relevant discussion in a WG's archive.
[11:36:59]
<Ian> TBL: We should write down what's
expected in an email that raises an issue.
[11:37:20]
<DanC> what's expected: pointer to where
it's been discussed in the W3C, IETf, etc.
[11:37:35]
<DanC> (Ian, pls point to Larry's
background pointers in the MIME type issue(s))
[11:37:37]
<Ian> Action IJ and TBL: Write down text
requiring context when you raise an issue.
[11:37:39]
<DanC> q+
[11:37:40]
[11:38:25]
<tim-mit> q+ Stu
[11:38:26]
[11:38:29]
<DanC> q-
[11:38:29]
<Ian> IJ: seems to come down to: "We'll
ignore unless we don't. Everything else is tips."
[11:38:30]
[11:38:34]
<tim-mit> q-
[11:38:35]
[11:38:49]
<DanC> yes, let's please use www-tag for
the substantive discussion
[11:39:11]
<Ian> SW: Do we want huge discussions on
www-tag, or do we want www-tag to be used for starting points?
[11:39:25]
<Dave> +1
[11:39:26]
[11:39:26]
<Ian> TB: I think strongly that we ought to
have substantive debate in public on the list.
[11:39:35]
<Ian> DC, TBL: Agreed.
[11:39:42]
<Dave> DO agreed
[11:40:11]
<Ian> DC: I don't rely on threading. I rely
on who sent the message.
[11:40:24]
<Ian> TB: I'll read things on the list that
have an assigned issue number.
[11:40:57]
[11:41:13]
<Ian> RF: Should every WG and IETF be
repeating all of their arguments on this list?
[11:41:22]
<Ian> ...this is a major overload
problem.
[11:42:04]
<Norm> q+
[11:42:05]
[11:42:40]
<Stuart> q- Stu
[11:42:41]
[11:42:50]
<Ian> DanC: I am hoping that no one person
can cause too much damage by sending too much mail. I'm hoping that a
community will form around the TAG, that people will do their homework, that
people will point to existing discussions, etc.
[11:42:53]
<Norm> q-
[11:42:54]
[11:43:03]
[11:43:44]
<Ian> TB: When we get formal communications
from other WGs, we probably should post a formal response whether we will
look at or not.
[11:44:16]
<Ian> ---------------------
[11:44:20]
<Ian> Request for liaison:
[11:44:26]
<Ian> * Invitation to participate in
UN/CEFACT ebTWG Architecture Group. Raised by Duane Nickull.
[11:44:33]
<Ian>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jan/0021
[11:44:45]
<Ian> Raised by Duane Nickull
[11:45:09]
<Ian> PC: Send to Chris Ferris, chair of
the Web Services Arch gruop.
[11:45:52]
[11:46:02]
<Norm> :-)
[11:46:24]
<DanC> I second PC's suggestion to delegate
ebXML invitation to new Web Services WG chair
[11:46:27]
<Norm> q+
[11:46:28]
[11:47:00]
<Ian> NW: If a formal group asks us, we
should have an obligation to respond (yes or no).
[11:47:20]
<Ian> ...treat formal requests for liaison
politely.
[11:47:30]
<Ian> TBL: If people come with a specific
issue?
[11:47:35]
<Ian> TB: Don't formalize too much:
[11:47:47]
<Ian> a) For official requests from w3c
wgs, we must respond publicly.
[11:48:02]
<Ian> b) When we get requests from formal
external bodies, we should think and SHOULD respond
[11:48:44]
<Ian> c) for individuals, default is that
we are not obligated to respond (but will try)
[11:49:59]
<Ian> Resolved: Decline request to liaison
with UN/CEFACT ebTWG arch group.
[11:50:12]
<Ian> Action PC: Draft response; will write
public response within 48 hours.
[11:50:24]
<Ian> -------------------------
[11:50:31]
<Ian> Request to review XForms:
[11:51:08]
<Ian> PC: The statement should state that
the TAG won't, as a matter of course, review things when they get to last
call. Please bring specific architectural disputes (with context) instead.
[11:51:20]
<Ian> ....overriding comment : We MAY
review many documents.
[11:51:42]
<Ian> TB: I agree with PC.
[11:52:35]
<Ian> Resolved: Add deprecating GET in
xforms as an issue.
[11:52:36]
<DanC> whenToUseGet-NNN
[11:52:42]
<Ian> thanks dc
[11:54:00]
--> Roy (~fielding@cx2098322-a.alsv1.occa.home.com) has joined #tagmem
[11:54:22]
<Roy> cox.net was down
[11:55:03]
[11:55:08]
<Ian> SW: What about if we respond by
declining and asking for other specific items.
[11:55:29]
<Ian> Action SW: Respond to Art on
www-tag.
[11:55:33]
<Ian>
-------------------------------------
[11:56:04]
<Ian> Review of existing non-Rec arch
documents:
[11:56:07]
<TimBray> unfortunately I have to go now
[11:56:08]
<Ian> *
[11:56:08]
<Ian> * XML in 10 points
[11:56:08]
<Ian> * What is a good standard?
[11:56:08]
<Ian> * Common User Agent Problems
[11:56:10]
<TimBray> bye
[11:56:12]
<DanC> ciao, Tim
[11:56:14]
<Ian> ciao
[11:56:15]
<DanC> bray
[11:56:24]
<Zakim> -TBray
[11:56:29]
<-- TimBray has quit ()
[11:56:35]
<Ian> TBL: I suggest as homework, and let
people raise issues if they find any.
[11:57:00]
<Ian> DanC: Reading material before ftf?
[11:57:37]
[11:57:50]
<Ian> Action IJ: Add links to this on
public tag page (background reading)
[11:57:55]
[11:57:56]
<Ian> --------------------------
[11:58:07]
<Ian> Next meeting: 4 Feb 2001
[11:58:09]
<Zakim> -Roy
[11:58:11]
<tim-mit> Thank you everyone!
[11:58:35]