Results of Questionnaire Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" as a W3C Working Draft?

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2007-06-26 to 2007-07-03.

86 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" as a W3C Working Draft?

1. Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" as a W3C Working Draft?

Shall we release HTML 5 differences from HTML 4 as a W3C Working Draft? Specifically, version 1.25 2007/06/25 14:50:30 plus any publication-related changes (e.g. status section, typos, broken links) agreed by Anne van Kesteren and Dan Connolly.

If you're not familiar with the process of Working Draft publication, see the list of W3C working drafts, section 7.4.1 First Public Working Draft of the Process document, and the heartbeat requirement.

Section 3.3 Consensus in the W3C process defines consensus as a "substantial number" in support of a proposal and no formal objections. In this survey, you may indicate disagreement without formally objecting. An individual who registers a Formal Objection should cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection. Please put your arguments (or a pointer to your arguments) in the rationale field.


ChoiceAll responders
Yes, agree 65
Abstain 11
No, disagree 3
Formally Object 5

(2 responses didn't contain an answer to this question)


Responder Release "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" as a W3C Working Draft?RationaleComments
W3C/Americas (Dan Connolly) Yes, agree
Opera Software AS (Anne van Kesteren) Yes, agree I think we should try getting the main specification out soon too.
Apple Inc. (Maciej Stachowiak) Yes, agree This seems like the best way to satisfy the heartbeat requirement.
Google LLC (Ian Hickson) Yes, agree
Queensland University of Technology (Michael Lawley) Yes, agree Paragraph 1 of section 2 should contain a reference to the cited example esoteric feature, eg http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/appendix/notes.html#h-B.3.7
International Webmasters Association (IWA) (Diego La Monica) Yes, agree
Mozilla Foundation (Gervase Markham) Yes, agree
Invited Experts with Member Access
Orange (Stéphane Deschamps) Yes, agree I'm late in joining the group but still will want to advocate for maintaining the table@summary attribute - and may have a few more remarks. Yet, as Lachlan Hunt says, it does reflect HTML 5 in its current state of work: not final.
mTLD Top Level Domain Limited (Stephen Stewart) Yes, agree Fulfils the "Heartbeat" requirement.Publishing "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" is the best way for anyone familiar with HTML 4 to see the current status of the work of this group.
W3C Invited Experts
Patrick Garies (Patrick Garies) Abstain I agree with Laura Carlson et al that there should be stated rationale for breaks from HTML4, particularly for dropped accessibility attributes and the redefinition of existing semantics.

Section 2.2 should have errors fixed. “DOCTYPEs from earlier versions of HTML were longer because the HTML language was SGML based and therefore required a reference to a DTD.” should have the word “needed” after “longer” and there should be a hyphen between “SGML” and “based”.
Thomas Broyer (Thomas Broyer) Yes, agree
Dylan Smith (Dylan Smith) No, disagree I don't the the doc has been reviewed enough by the WG to 'publish' as such, yet.
Sec 7.4.1 says: "The publication of the First Public Working Draft is a signal to the community to begin reviewing the document." If we're not anywhere near finishing a first review of this doc, why publish it?
It may well be a good starting point for discussion, but there seem to be a number of contentious issues that should be resolved, or at the very least documented prior to publication.
Sander van Lambalgen (Sander van Lambalgen) Yes, agree
James Cassell (James Cassell) Abstain There are some good arguments as to why we should not release this as a working draft, namely, that the design principles document hasn't been released yet.
Dannii Willis (Dannii Willis) Yes, agree
Geoff Richards (Geoff Richards) Yes, agree
M. Jackson Wilkinson (M. Jackson Wilkinson) Yes, agree
Serdar Kiliç (Serdar Kiliç) Yes, agree
Jeff Schiller (Jeff Schiller) Yes, agree I agree on the condition that http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html#ref-html5 be cleaned up two only specify one set of HTML5 and WebForms documents.
Joshua Sled (Joshua Sled) Yes, agree The draft is a useful, concise overview, which should inform future review and discussion.
Michael Puls II (Michael Puls II) Yes, agree
Arne Johannessen (Arne Johannessen) Yes, agree While a risk of creating a wrong impression about HTML 5 exists, this document is sufficiently clear about its status that the advantages of publishing it outweigh this risk by far.
Terry Morris (Terry Morris) Abstain The document contains rationale for dropping presentational elements and attributes. I believe that it is also necessary to provide rationale for dropping the accessibility-related attributes.
Alejandro Fernandez (Alejandro Fernandez) Yes, agree
Theresa O'Connor (Theresa O'Connor) Yes, agree
Daniel Schattenkirchner (Daniel Schattenkirchner) Yes, agree
Doug Wright (Doug Wright) Yes, agree
Robert Burns (Robert Burns) Formally Object I do not understand why we would start with this document for fulfill the heartbeat rule rather than the "Design Principles". Publishing a document that lays out the differences between HTML4 and HTML5 implies that this WG done some work on HTML5. That work has only just begun and reviews are scheduled for completion throughout this month. I certainly could imagine a differences document or even a first working draft itself ready for the next heartbeat in three months.The hearbeat rule aside (which would be satisfied more easily, more quickly and less painfully with the principles document), making the differences document available to the public as a draft of this WG would be understood by our audience as reflecting the work of this WG. It does not because that work is only now just beginning.

The document is already available for public revirew at <http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Differences_from_HTML4>, so we do not provide any more information by publishing than is already available. I would have no objection to adding a link to the WhatWG publication from our front page along with a link to the WhatWG HTML5 draft as long as it was made clear that those documents are where the HTML WG is beginning its preparation of a draft.

In summary my formal objection to publishing this document are due to: 1) publishing this document to fulfill the heartbeat rule is unnecessary since we have the "Design Principles" document to publish. 2) The public will misunderstand the meaning of us re-publishing the "differences" document, thinking that it reflects the work and endorsement of the HTML WG. 3) The document is already available for public information through the WhatWG. 4) The work of the HTML WG has not yet been completed to a sufficient degree to even determine what differences there will be between HTML4 and HTML5 (even for a draft). 5) We are having problems communicating the issues conveyed in the "differences" document within the WG itself. Publishing that to a general audience with all of its ambiguity will only exhibit the same issue, compounded tremendously.

I would remove this formal objection once: 1) We have published our design principles (at least in draft form) 2) the WG member reviews have been filed and the WG editors have had time to digest and incorporate changes (as they deem necessary) into the draft 3) The ambiguities in the document are dealt with. In particular there are ambiguities about what it means to drop/omit/deprecate a facility of the language. Many of those omitted facilities are lumped together whether they were actually actively omitted or have not yet been considered. Ambiguities over the rationale for omitting (particularly semantic) facilities have not yet been added to the document.
Philip TAYLOR (Philip TAYLOR) Formally Object 1) Approximately five times as many respondents favoured publishing the design principles first as favoured publishing "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4"; given the W3C's position on consensus, it is clear that the first document to be agreed and published should be one outlining the design principles on which HTML 5 is to be based.

2) It will not be possible to publish anything on "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" until a specification for HTML 5 has been agreed. At the moment, the specification represents the beliefs of, and consensus amongst, the WHAT WG rather than this group.
No further comment needed, I believe.
Craig Francis (Craig Francis) Yes, agree Web developers need to know what it happening... if they know this is a draft, and things can change, they can also start making suggestions.
Egor Kloos (Egor Kloos) Yes, agree This documents state is mature enough to be released in to the wild. Some of the language needs a little polish, which I trust will be taken care of for the working draft release.
Raphael Champeimont (Raphael Champeimont) Yes, agree
Eric Eggert (Eric Eggert) Yes, agree
Scott Lewis (Scott Lewis) Yes, agree
Leif Halvard Silli (Leif Halvard Silli) Formally Object (1) To publish «differences» before «design principles», would to me seem like ignoring the previous questionaire about which doc to publish first. This again could lead participants to ignore partaking in these questionaires, since their outcome are ignored anyway. Therefore, I formally object.

(2) This working draft currently fails to list accessibility as a field where HTML5 (as delivered from the WHATwg) differs (whether for the better or the worse) substantially from HTML4. To not mention this, may give the impression that one are trying to play down the issue.
(1) This document, which (could) act as a overview of what HTML5 is supposed to be, is long overdue appearance from the brains behind HTML5 - the WHATwg group. But to change its status from editor's draft to working draft now, seems out of order when we have voted to publish design principles first. Also: Without the «real» design principleses document, this could soon become a defacto «design principles» document, as what it really does is to give a short overview over the ideas behind HTML5 - as delivered by the WHATwg. (It is notable that the document reflects very little - if any - of the issues that have been debated the heaviest in the HTMLwg - not only when it comes to the accessibility attributes of TABLE, but also on a such issue as the proposed DOCTYPE.)

(2) But even without agreed upon design principles at hand, I think the working draft fails miserably when it does not mention accessibility as a field where it differs greatly (currently - and perhaps at any rate) from HTML4. HTML4 mentioned Accessisibility as a fields where it differed (positively) from previous HTML standards. See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html#h-2.3.2, were many things which WHATwg want to delete, are mentioned (ACRONYM, non-visual rendering of TABLES amongst them.)

Btw, it also feels as if the document speaks with a double tongue, when it speaks about author versus UA requirements. Is this differentiation meant to comfort those authors that do not find their favourite elements/attributes in HTML5 (for instance the HEADERS attribute)?
Adam Nash (Adam Nash) Yes, agree It's an informative summary of the proposed changes, and I think publishing useful working drafts is a measurable way to move forward. My only reservation is that I imagine some people who aren't familiar with the w3c working draft process (most people) will skip all the intro text and get the impression that these changes are finalized, then start blogging in outrage about it or something. I don't know what more can be done about that though; some people are just dumb on the internet.http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/1004.html
Johannes Lichtenberger (Johannes Lichtenberger) Yes, agree It covers the current state of HTML 5 very well.
David Choi (David Choi) Yes, agree Seems ready for community review.
Brendan Cullen (Brendan Cullen) Abstain
Joshue O'Connor (Joshue O'Connor) No, disagree This is difficult - as I have just joined the group - but in truth I am also not convinced - as it stands - that the document explains clearly the rational for dropping important attributes (summary, headers and longdesc) that have had such a proven and positive impact on enhancing accessibility. I really don't think it's enough to state that they have been dropped and not explain why.When this document is presented to the world and others who are not expert developers or accessibility people read it, it needs to be clear as to why important (accessibility) features are being changed, why this is happening and appear confident in how the specification will evolve. I don't get that sense at the moment and think many will be confused reading it - especially if they come to the document cold.

For the record, I am not against the draft (in principle) but while these issues are being debated and resolved I think it would be best to wait until a clearer outcome is reached. This is also to help developers not in the group to understand some of the very important changes being suggested and contribute to the discussion in a constructive and informed manner.
Thomas Bradley (Thomas Bradley) Yes, agree
Stephen Axthelm (Stephen Axthelm) Yes, agree
Ben Boyle (Ben Boyle) Yes, agree We need to publish, it's a useful document, it's a draft (i.e. people shouldn't assume it represents anything "final" - it represents the current state of the WG).
Robert Marshall (Robert Marshall) Yes, agree
Michaeljohn Clement (Michaeljohn Clement) Yes, agree
Andrew Ramsden (Andrew Ramsden) Yes, agree The feedback (positive and negative) it receives should be very useful in guiding the next steps.
Eric Daspet (Eric Daspet) Abstain
Olivier Gendrin (Olivier Gendrin) Yes, agree
Channy Yun (Channy Yun) Yes, agree General people can understand complicated specification hard to read through this document.
Sam Sneddon Yes, agree
Darren West (Darren West) Yes, agree
Shawn Medero (Shawn Medero) Yes, agree There seems to be confusion concerning the purpose of this document. A couple of objections state that the document doesn't not adequately justify dropping/adding/changing certain elements but I don't believe this document makes any attempt (nor should it) to justify anything. It clearly explains the differences between HTML 4 and where we are with HTML 5 at this point in time. It has been very productive at doing so - a number of concerns have been raised about the proposed HTML 5 spec within the working group based on the differences pointed out in this document. With that in mind it should be published to a wider audience so we can get their feedback as well. Approving this document and the changes described will not act as a "rubber stamp" for the entire HTML 5 spec.
Lachlan Hunt (Lachlan Hunt) Yes, agree There is no reason not to publish as a working draft. Although it's clearly incomplete and there are many open issues, it closely reflects the current state of HTML5, which is good enough for a WD.Responses that ask for detailed rationale for every dropped, added and changed element and attribute is unrealistic, since the HTML5 spec isn't finished, and not all issues have been decided yet. It's also questionable as to whether giving detailed rationale for decisions is in the scope of this document, which I believe should be an objective summary of the differences only.

By comparison, the following appendices in HTML4 and XHTML1.1 which list changes from previous versions don't give rationale, and the comparison of SGML and XML doesn't either.

Arthur Jennings (Arthur Jennings) Yes, agree
Benjamin Meadowcroft (Benjamin Meadowcroft) Yes, agree Publishing this will open up the work to a wider range of people who can then feedback on the work without trawling through the mailing lists to find out where we are up to as a working group.
Matthew Ratzloff (Matthew Ratzloff) Abstain
Ryan King (Ryan King) Yes, agree The
James Graham (James Graham) Yes, agree Whilst the concept of "publishing" makes little sense applied to a publicly available document that has already been widely circulated on the internet, this document is, in my opinion, second only to the draft spec itself in it's usefulness in communicating the current state of play for HTML 5. It is also a helpful precis for those unfamiliar with the HTML 5 draft and has caused focused discussion on some technical matters. Since there appear to be some unresolved issues with publishing a draft of the spec itself, I believe this is the second best option.
Kornel Lesinski (Kornel Lesinski) Abstain I'd like it to contain rationale for dropping accessibility-related attributes.
Other than that, it's OK.
Jirka Kosek (Jirka Kosek) Yes, agree http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0853.html
Cameron McCormack (Cameron McCormack) Yes, agree
Julian Reschke (Julian Reschke) Abstain
Jens Oliver Meiert (Jens Oliver Meiert) Yes, agree
Steve Faulkner (Steve Faulkner) Formally Object The "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" Editor's draft 25 June 2007 does not provide a rationale for the dropping of the summary, headers and longdesc attributes and does not provide any information regarding changed or new elements and attributes that will provide the same or similar accessibility features to the attributes being dropped. The arguments for and against the dropping of these attributes are currently being debated by and have been detailed by members of the working group[1] Also it does not adequately document the dropping of these attributes as being open issues within section "1.1. Open Issues"

As per the Formal Objection Guidelines[2]I propose that the "HTML 5 differences from HTML 4" document be modified to clearly indicate the rationales for dropping the attributes in question and their status as being open issues, both in "1.1. Open Issues" and in "3.6. Dropped Attributes" section.


Sander Tekelenburg (Sander Tekelenburg) Yes, agree
Sean Fraser (Sean Fraser) Yes, agree A very important document for continued public education.
Masataka Yakura (Masataka Yakura) Yes, agree
Balakumar Muthu (Balakumar Muthu) Yes, agree
Brad Fults (Brad Fults) Yes, agree This document is the first step in making the work of this working group more approachable and intelligible to both content authors and spec consumers. As such, it should be published and commented on early and often.
Nicolas Le Gall (Nicolas Le Gall) Yes, agree
John-Mark Bell (John-Mark Bell) Abstain
Weston Ruter (Weston Ruter) Yes, agree
David Andersson (David Andersson) Yes, agree
Tim McMahon (Tim McMahon) Yes, agree
Andrei Polushin (Andrei Polushin) Yes, agree
Roger Johansson (Roger Johansson) Abstain Rationale for each removed/changed/added element and attribute is needed. At the very least the document should state that rationale for all changes will be included in a future update.
Ben Millard (Ben Millard) Yes, agree * Fulfills the heartbeat requirement.
* Merely documents facts and is accurate enough in doing so.
* Introduces how the HTML5 proposal differs technically from current widespread standards, making it suitable as a first publication.
* Is not binding and does not lock us into the current feature set. As the HTML5 proposal changes, so will this document.
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo (Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo) Abstain
Laura Carlson (Laura Carlson) No, disagree Rationale based on design principles, for each and every dropped/added/changed element and attribute should be supplied. Plus a link to the issues page in the the wiki should be added.

The design principles received the most support [34] in the "What should the HTML WG publish first?" survey.
Only seven people supported publishing a "What's new in HTML 5".

Results were:

- Design principles, requirements = 34
- HTML 5 specification = 25
tutorial = 0
- a "What's new in HTML 5" document, enumerating differences from HTML 4, and perhaps discussing their status = 7
- a testing plan/proposal = 1

So I'm not sure why the differences document is being pushed for publication first, unless it is to solely to fulfill the heartbeat requirement.

In order to apply consistent decision making throughout the specification, it is critical to come to consensus on the design principles. No principles or disputed principles can very well lead to inconsistent, contradictory, and discriminating decision making. Principles can be a critical guide.

Consensus of guiding principles, definition of terms, and a common set of reviewing questions for features would:

1. Aid in communication and understanding.
2. Help avoid needless arguments and churning of issues.
3. Promote consistent and fair decision making.
5. Encourage outcomes that reflect what is important to the working group.
6. Benefit working group progress.

Publishing the differences document before coming to consensus on the
design principles is backward.

No agreed upon principles, at best results in decisions (e.g. dropping/adding/changing elements and attributes) without foundation.

At worse it results in arbitrary, inconsistent, unjust, partial, wrong-headed, and discriminating decisions.
At the very least, the document should have a disclaimer stating something like:

"This document is a draft. It is not a set of decisions. It is not based on agreed upon principles. All rationale for proposed differences is pending and will be forthcoming. This document is merely a discussion starter for the group. It does not constitute endorsement of the differences specified, nor does it indicate that the Working Group feels that the document in its present state should be incorporated into HTML 5 as a W3C Recommendation or even a W3C Working Draft."
Paul Haine (Paul Haine) Yes, agree
Bill Mason (Bill Mason) Yes, agree
Andrew Sidwell (Andrew Sidwell) Yes, agree It is written and it is useful. Not publishing it seems a waste of effort.
Sandy Smith (Sandy Smith) Yes, agree
Gregory Rosmaita (Gregory Rosmaita) Formally Object it is unconscionable that the HTML WG should release a vastly different draft in toto without first outlining and cementing our design principles.i still hold to the opinion that our development path should start with HTML 4.01, its corrections and errata, and THEN introduce each issue from the HTML5 draft as INDIVIDUAL issues. i am EXTREMELY uncomfortable in being forced to choose a draft, in toto, as our bsic working draft slash foundational document, because too many of HTML4x's babies are being flushed down the drain with the bathwater of those issues which need to be addressed more fully, such as the integration of XForms work into HTML markup, and fixing that which is actually broken, by examining each piece individually; comparing and contrasting HTML4x against HTML5 is a good, constructive effort, but to adopt HTML5 and then be told that specific items for specific use cases and re-use cases which have been stripped from HTML4x need to be justified in order to be retained or restored to the proposed HTML5 working draft is a slap in the face of those who worked extremely hard to ensure that HTML4x addressed accessibility issues, and an even harder blow to the guts of the users who actually benefit from them... clearly identified needs don't need to be justified, they need to be addressed. this isn't rhetoric, it's reality.

More details on responses

  • W3C/Americas: last responded on 26, June 2007 at 17:08 (UTC)
  • Opera Software AS: last responded on 26, June 2007 at 17:15 (UTC)
  • Apple Inc.: last responded on 26, June 2007 at 20:06 (UTC)
  • Google LLC: last responded on 26, June 2007 at 20:14 (UTC)
  • Queensland University of Technology: last responded on 27, June 2007 at 04:06 (UTC)
  • International Webmasters Association (IWA): last responded on 28, June 2007 at 20:51 (UTC)
  • Mozilla Foundation: last responded on 29, June 2007 at 09:33 (UTC)
  • Invited Experts with Member Access: last responded on 30, June 2007 at 01:40 (UTC)
  • Orange: last responded on 2, July 2007 at 14:25 (UTC)
  • mTLD Top Level Domain Limited: last responded on 2, July 2007 at 15:00 (UTC)
  • W3C Invited Experts: last responded on 4, July 2007 at 00:53 (UTC)
  • Patrick Garies: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Thomas Broyer: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Dylan Smith: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Sander van Lambalgen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • James Cassell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Dannii Willis: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Geoff Richards: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • M. Jackson Wilkinson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Serdar Kiliç: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Jeff Schiller: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Joshua Sled: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Michael Puls II: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Arne Johannessen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Terry Morris: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Alejandro Fernandez: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Daniel Schattenkirchner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Doug Wright: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Robert Burns: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Philip TAYLOR: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Craig Francis: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Egor Kloos: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Raphael Champeimont: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Eric Eggert: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Scott Lewis: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Leif Halvard Silli: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Adam Nash: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Johannes Lichtenberger: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • David Choi: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Brendan Cullen: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Joshue O'Connor: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Thomas Bradley: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Stephen Axthelm: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Ben Boyle: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Robert Marshall: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Michaeljohn Clement: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Andrew Ramsden: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Eric Daspet: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Olivier Gendrin: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Channy Yun: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Sam Sneddon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Darren West: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Shawn Medero: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Lachlan Hunt: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Arthur Jennings: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Benjamin Meadowcroft: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Matthew Ratzloff: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Ryan King: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • James Graham: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Kornel Lesinski: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Jirka Kosek: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Cameron McCormack: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Julian Reschke: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Jens Oliver Meiert: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Steve Faulkner: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Sander Tekelenburg: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Sean Fraser: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Masataka Yakura: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Balakumar Muthu: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Brad Fults: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Nicolas Le Gall: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • John-Mark Bell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Weston Ruter: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • David Andersson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Tim McMahon: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Andrei Polushin: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Roger Johansson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Ben Millard: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Paul Haine: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Bill Mason: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Andrew Sidwell: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Sandy Smith: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)
  • Gregory Rosmaita: last responded on 18, May 2009 at 13:21 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire