| 01:31 | <zewt> | nothing discourages filing bugs quite as much as bugzilla 10-mile-long component lists |
| 07:53 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i see lots of !/ in href/src before # |
| 07:57 | <zcorpan> | e.g. <a class="tabmenulist2" href="http://www.famouswhy.com/Movie/The_Informant!/85308.html"; >The Informant!</a> |
| 07:57 | <zcorpan> | <a href="/wps/portal/PN_CTR/Home/homepage/!ut/p/b1/04_Sj9S1tDQwMTc0MDPRj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOJDjQxCHZ0MHQ0MTLxcDDxdvHwNQ8yNDb1NjfQjgQrMcSsw1w_RjzAwiQ_OqizwDgku8fZJNg_Mqiwv8M42DqsyDgsNcwx0jApPdCsoV1TUD9ePxG9YbpR7WaWjoiIAf90Lqg!!/?content=Homepage" class="nav_link_active">Homepage</a> |
| 07:57 | <zcorpan> | <img src="https://a1s.unicdn.net/polopoly_fs/1.300930.1351767812!/image/1987622790.jpg_gen/derivatives/265x210/1987622790.jpg"; alt="Kitten" class="background" /> |
| 08:38 | <zcorpan> | Domenic_: webidl takes care of the branding check aiui |
| 09:20 | <Domenic_> | zcorpan: WebIDL is not the language of the web. The trick is to consider whether your API is something intuitive to JS developers, fitting with common practices, or whether it's some crazy monstrosity generated by WebIDL bindings. |
| 09:22 | <zcorpan> | Domenic_: webidl came out of what was needed by html, more or less |
| 09:23 | <Domenic_> | sure, and it serves a purpose. but just because something can be done in webidl, doesn't mean it's a good api. for that, it's best to try implementing in JS, and seeing how natural it is. |
| 09:24 | <zcorpan> | yeah, fair enough |
| 09:25 | <zcorpan> | i'll outsource that to you :-) |
| 09:28 | <Domenic_> | yeah, it became clear nobody was going to try to do things in JS, so I just did it. Happy for that to be my way to contribute :) |
| 10:41 | jgraham | wonders how ES6 WeakMaps avoid exposing GC |
| 10:44 | <jgraham> | (also it seems to make the PortCollection thing unneeded) |
| 10:55 | <zcorpan> | jgraham: there's a convention for -manual in the file name, right? |
| 10:59 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Right |
| 11:09 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: BTW if you are looking at critic reviews https://critic.hoppipolla.co.uk/r/343 would be nice and is not that time consuming, I think |
| 11:09 | <jgraham> | If you don't do it I will though |
| 11:09 | <jgraham> | So don't worry |
| 11:15 | <zcorpan> | what's the outlook for the microdata api? |
| 11:16 | <jgraham> | Bleak afaict |
| 11:17 | <jgraham> | But I think the tests changed because DOMTokenList changed |
| 11:17 | <jgraham> | So I'm not sure it's really Microdata-API specific |
| 11:17 | <zcorpan> | yeah, was mostly curius if something changed recently |
| 11:26 | <jgraham> | zcorpan: Thanks! |
| 11:27 | <zcorpan> | welcome |
| 11:28 | <Ms2ger> | zcorpan, and thanks from me too :) |
| 11:29 | <annevk> | zcorpan: can you try some other combinations that end with / ? |
| 11:29 | <annevk> | zcorpan: e.g. $/ |
| 11:30 | <annevk> | zcorpan: maybe &/, ^/, */, @/ |
| 11:35 | <zcorpan> | $ grep -rEio "<[a-z][^>]*\s(href|src)\s*=\s*[^>#? ]+[$&^*@]/[^>]*>" . > ~/Desktop/combinators-in-href-src.txt |
| 11:45 | <foolip> | nessy, did you already update the spec for "Redesign the positioning mechanism"? |
| 11:45 | <foolip> | your last comment on bug 20037 seems to say so |
| 11:57 | <zcorpan> | annevk: $ 15, & 11, ^ 0, * 1021, @ 1067 |
| 11:59 | <zcorpan> | no wait, ^ 20 |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | thanks |
| 12:01 | <zcorpan> | & might be higher if people use & |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | good point |
| 12:01 | <annevk> | but they all suck basically |
| 12:02 | <annevk> | %/ would be unique I guess, but doesn't work in IE |
| 12:16 | <nessy> | foolip, yes, the update is in the editor's draft |
| 12:17 | <foolip> | nessy, so is 20037 resolved to your satisfaction, then? |
| 12:17 | <nessy> | see comment 47 on that bug |
| 12:17 | <foolip> | oh, I seem to have missed that |
| 12:18 | <nessy> | foolip, it was initially, but then David raised some additional issues, which is why we're now continuing |
| 12:18 | <foolip> | I have a bit of a hard time pinning down what exact problem 20037 is supposed to solve, which is why I keep suggesting random changes |
| 12:18 | <nessy> | ha, lol |
| 12:18 | <nessy> | that's why I wrote comment 51 |
| 12:19 | <nessy> | it's trying to summarize the remaining issue |
| 12:20 | <nessy> | basically, what I have specified right now is the behaviour of background-position |
| 12:21 | <foolip> | is there a single easy-to-read commit that I could review? |
| 12:21 | <foolip> | and does this change alter the default rendering in a way that could break some content? |
| 12:21 | <nessy> | however, since we only use the percentage-part of background-position, specifying things like "have the top of the cue box be 30% from the top" becomes extremely difficult |
| 12:22 | <foolip> | I'm hoping that there isn't enough content to restrict us yet, but I have no idea |
| 12:22 | <foolip> | right, CSS's background-position only distributes the remaining space on either side, really, it has no concept of aligning a particular edge to a percentage, that I know of |
| 12:23 | <nessy> | if you look at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/ , you can see the patches |
| 12:23 | <foolip> | so you mean to solve this by making align take two values as letting position refer to the offset to that alignment point? |
| 12:24 | <nessy> | The key change was https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/rev/f15d41b309e5 , but it's quite big |
| 12:24 | <foolip> | oh, look at that algorithm go, we had that implemented step-by-step in Presto :) |
| 12:24 | <nessy> | I agree that we don't want to break existing content, but I don't think we will - at least not those that were quite specific |
| 12:25 | <nessy> | blink and webkit do, too |
| 12:25 | <foolip> | if you plan more changes for 20037, maybe I should wait until you're done and then review the whole of it for sanity |
| 12:25 | <nessy> | I still have to make the change to my javascript experimental code, too |
| 12:26 | <nessy> | foolip: a review would absolutely be a good idea |
| 12:27 | <foolip> | nessy, when you think that you're done, a single comment that summarizes the intended new behavior of the modifies properties would help a lot, so that I have some idea what I should be looking for |
| 12:28 | <nessy> | as for the final change that I'm proposing is exactly what you say above, except I think it needs to be a new cue setting |
| 12:28 | <nessy> | because we want to leave "align" as is as the alignment within the cue box |
| 12:28 | <foolip> | s/modifies/modified/ |
| 12:28 | <foolip> | because of compat? |
| 12:28 | <nessy> | indeed |
| 12:29 | <foolip> | if we need two properties then I think align+text-align had a nice ring to it, kind of matches <img align> and CSS text-align |
| 12:29 | <nessy> | foolip: when I add the changes to the cvs repo, they are all compressed into one commit, so you should get exactly what you're asking for |
| 12:29 | <foolip> | but you think that'll break too much stuff? |
| 12:29 | <nessy> | yeah, I hesitate to rename "align" to "text-align" |
| 12:29 | <nessy> | because of backwards compatibility |
| 12:30 | <foolip> | what if the default value of text-align were the value of align? |
| 12:30 | <foolip> | or won't that make sense with the new values? |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | hmm... |
| 12:30 | <nessy> | of the first dimension? |
| 12:31 | <foolip> | nessy, yeah, if the first value of align is always in the text direction (sloppy wording, but you see what I mean) |
| 12:32 | <nessy> | yup |
| 12:32 | <nessy> | I think it could work |
| 12:33 | <nessy> | default value of align would need to be "middle,middle" anyway |
| 12:33 | <foolip> | but I think that we should pick the names and behavior that make the most sense in the long term |
| 12:33 | <nessy> | ok, that's fair enough |
| 12:34 | <nessy> | sticking with some css-likeness is also sensible |
| 12:34 | <foolip> | I guess in CSS terms there's vertical-align and text-align |
| 12:35 | <nessy> | not really: vertical-align is with reference to a line whereas we are talking about the cue box |
| 12:36 | <foolip> | nessy, I'm just saying what properties actually exist in CSS, not that they map to what we want |
| 12:36 | <nessy> | but text-align is definitely appropriate for alignment withing the box |
| 12:36 | <nessy> | right |
| 12:36 | <foolip> | then there's the (obsolete) align and valign attributes... |
| 12:36 | <nessy> | I'd try to avoid making false friends |
| 12:38 | <foolip> | yeah, if they actually mean something completely different, I don't know in detail what these attributes do |
| 12:38 | <nessy> | we could have align and valign instead of a single align with two values, if you think that makes more sense |
| 12:39 | <foolip> | hmm, valign means vertical-align, which I guess makes it weird for vertical text |
| 12:39 | <nessy> | but the align attribute in HTML used to mean more what text-align in CSS does, so we shouldn't really do that |
| 12:39 | <foolip> | nessy, davve tells me that align used to be something like floats |
| 12:39 | <nessy> | that's why I suggested cue-align - it has no history and less confusion |
| 12:40 | <nessy> | oh! |
| 12:40 | <foolip> | yeah, but if we need to keep the existing align it needs to do *something*... |
| 12:40 | <foolip> | maybe a shorthand that sets both cue-align and text-align? |
| 12:40 | <zcorpan> | foolip: it depends on the element (html's align) |
| 12:41 | <nessy> | we have to set a cue alignment for the position direction and for the line direction, so we already need two values for that |
| 12:42 | <nessy> | foolip: are you suggesting to extend "align" to a triple value attribute, first the text-align within the cue, then the position direction cue align, then the line direction cue align? |
| 12:43 | <foolip> | no, I don't have a finished solution that I think is sane, yet |
| 12:43 | <foolip> | but we have an existing align that takes a single value, presumably we want to keep that and let it behave as close as possible to what it always has? |
| 12:44 | <nessy> | yes |
| 12:44 | <foolip> | so I guess the options are: |
| 12:45 | <foolip> | 1. add new granular properties *-align and let their default values depend on the old align |
| 12:45 | <foolip> | 2. let the old align take on a new meaning and add just a single new *-align |
| 12:45 | <foolip> | 3. let the old align do everything, comma-separated |
| 12:45 | <annevk> | zcorpan: could you check %/ just in case? |
| 12:45 | <foolip> | is that about it? |
| 12:46 | <nessy> | I think so |
| 12:47 | <foolip> | I guess you're not about to do the spec edit, so maybe list the alternatives in a comment and see if other people have better ideas? |
| 12:47 | <nessy> | except, the default value thing of option 1 should be on option 2 with the default value of the new align depending on the next *-align properties |
| 12:48 | <nessy> | I'm definitely not editing tonight - edits after 11pm end up in disaster |
| 12:48 | <foolip> | right, it's late down under, I forget :) |
| 12:49 | <zcorpan> | annevk: i run out of disk space when greping :-( |
| 12:49 | <foolip> | well thanks for the hand-holding in any case, I feel like I have a bit more of a clue what the problems are now |
| 12:49 | <nessy> | If I write another comment on that huge bug, I wouldn't be surprised about attacks on my life ;-) so feel free to propose the three options |
| 12:49 | <foolip> | nessy, haha, ok, I'll try to keep it short |
| 12:49 | <zcorpan> | annevk: isn't % a non-option anyway? |
| 12:49 | <annevk> | zcorpan: is that a bad sign? |
| 12:49 | <annevk> | zcorpan: depends on what we decide to care about |
| 12:49 | <nessy> | foolip: thanks! also thanks for the patience - that bug is really hard to follow! |
| 12:51 | <nessy> | and that's me for today! nn |
| 13:17 | <zcorpan> | turns out grep -r is the sucker's method |
| 13:19 | <zcorpan> | annevk: there are at least 28 %/ |
| 13:20 | <jgraham> | Hmm, why is -r a problem? |
| 13:20 | <zcorpan> | it consumes like 2G of memory |
| 13:21 | <jgraham> | Wait, is this OSX? Does -r do something different on BSD grep? |
| 13:22 | <zcorpan> | osx, yeah. no idea. now i use http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5200591/how-to-use-grep-efficiently which doens't have the memory problem |
| 13:22 | <zcorpan> | annevk: 34 |
| 13:23 | <annevk> | that's weird |
| 13:25 | <zcorpan> | <a href="http://twitter.com/%user_screen_name%/status/%id_str%"; target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> looks like a template |
| 13:25 | <zcorpan> | <a href="http://www.ar-wp.com/forums/users/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b9%d8%b1%d8%a8%d9%8a-%d8%b3%d9%85%/"; title="العربي سمير" rel="nofollow"> |
| 13:26 | <zcorpan> | <a href='http://modern-shop.ibuy.co.th/360977/ภาพวาดสีน้ำมัน+100%/'; target='_blank'> |
| 13:39 | <zcorpan> | annevk: 0 instances of => and => |
| 13:39 | <annevk> | zcorpan: you mean like =>/ ? |
| 13:39 | <annevk> | zcorpan: has to end with a slash |
| 13:41 | <zcorpan> | yeah well there are presumably no instances with a slash after :-) |
| 13:41 | <zcorpan> | but maybe > is annoying in html |
| 13:43 | <annevk> | yeah, also with <URL> |
| 13:55 | <zcorpan> | lots of |/ |
| 13:59 | <jgraham> | Why does it have to end in /? |
| 13:59 | <jgraham> | Also, this isn't going to work |
| 14:00 | <annevk> | Otherwise relative URLs don't work in the fallback case |
| 14:05 | <zcorpan> | any objections to interface DOMRect : DOMRectReadOnly {...} ? |
| 14:45 | <annevk> | zcorpan: does class X extends XX in JS enable that? I doubt it |
| 15:21 | <Domenic_> | annevk: it does per my gist... |
| 15:21 | <annevk> | Domenic_: oh yeah, doh |
| 15:24 | <Domenic_> | it's probably the best solution for avoiding code duplication. if i were writing from scratch in JS I might do mixins or similar though, not sure. seems fine though, not worth worrying about more than we have already. |
| 15:28 | <Domenic_> | What are the best ways for community members to meet standards writers face to face? I don't see a lot of standards people at the same conferences as me; do they have their own? |
| 15:34 | <jgraham> | Well in theory TPAC |
| 15:34 | <jgraham> | Except that's Pay-to-Play and you are supposed to be in a WG |
| 15:35 | <jgraham> | (better than TC39 I guess) |
| 15:35 | <jgraham> | Oh and it seems like no one is going this year |
| 15:36 | <Domenic_> | seems bad |
| 15:36 | <Domenic_> | need more things like tc39 and tag just did in boston i'd think... those were well-received from what i could tell. |
| 15:36 | <Domenic_> | although i guess esoteric-css-feature-working-group might not get a great turnout to their meetup, hmm. |
| 15:37 | <jgraham> | So there is also a problem that there aren't that many people like annevk who are professional standards wonks |
| 15:37 | <jgraham> | Even people that are editing specs are often really engineers |
| 15:38 | <jgraham> | (by which I mean that the bulk of their job is implementation) |
| 15:38 | <Domenic_> | Right. I guess I am just working from my experiences at conferences making open-source much more approachable because then I have faces and personalities for the people I see on GitHub. It would be cool if there were similar things for the people involved in web standards, so we have some empathy for the people on mailing lists. |
| 15:38 | <jgraham> | So those people are often super-busy |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | Right, so I agree that there is a value to F2F meetings |
| 15:39 | <zewt> | (unlike the guys who just do specs? :) |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | I'm just saying that they don't really happen at the moment |
| 15:39 | <jgraham> | Or don't happen for the "right" reasons |
| 15:40 | <Domenic_> | maybe i should pressure conference organizers to invite them more. They might be too busy to accept, but it could help in some cases. |
| 15:40 | <jgraham> | Sure |
| 15:41 | <jgraham> | If you are happy getting a lot of Anne / Alex / Tab, that will work OK |
| 15:41 | <jgraham> | If you want more people than that, less so |
| 15:41 | <slightlyoff> | what's my fault? |
| 15:41 | <jsbell> | That would be an entertaining keynote tag-team right there |
| 15:42 | <jgraham> | I guess there is also TestTWF. Which is occasionally a thing. |
| 15:42 | <jgraham> | But it usually isn't part of a larger conference |
| 15:43 | <jgraham> | (although perhaps it could be?) |
| 15:44 | <Domenic_> | it would be cool if it were, hmm. i've always wanted to go to them but can't justify travel; bundling it with a conference would work. |
| 15:44 | <Domenic_> | testtwf seems pretty successful and awesome from what i read on blog posts. |
| 15:45 | <jgraham> | So the problem with that is that TestTWF really needs at least a whole day |
| 15:45 | <jgraham> | And preferably a little longer |
| 15:46 | <Domenic_> | sure, but if it was just the day after the conference, that'd help me not have to book a separate flight. |
| 15:46 | <jgraham> | Yes that makes sense |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | Historically they have been close to TPAC or other meetings where it is known that there will be a lot of people to act as "experts" |
| 15:47 | <jgraham> | Which returns us to the original problem |
| 15:47 | <Domenic_> | ah right that makes sense. hmm. |
| 15:48 | <jgraham> | Of course you could run a smaller event with fewer experts |
| 15:48 | <jgraham> | I'm pretty sure we could do one in London with just the ambient population of experts |
| 15:49 | <jgraham> | It could be possible to schedule that to fit with some bigger conference if there is one |
| 15:50 | <Domenic_> | great british nodeconf :trollface: |
| 15:51 | <jgraham> | (but by design that will only be a few spec authors) |
| 15:53 | <astearns> | some people have held small TestTWF meetups, and when that happens we try to help get nearby spec editors to attend |
| 15:54 | <astearns> | I think it would work to organize a medium-size TestTWF around a large non-W3C conference |
| 15:54 | <astearns> | we'll be talking about TestTWF at a booth at HTML5DevCon this month |
| 16:03 | <jgraham> | Well, as I almost said, I have a vauge idea to do TestTWF-London sometime early next year. But nothing at all definite. |
| 16:04 | <astearns> | I've never been to London - if it becomes definite I'll definitely argue for the travel budget |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | Domenic_: I want StandardsCamp or some such |
| 16:23 | <annevk> | Domenic_: or WebPlatformCamp / BrowserCamp, whatever we want to call it |
| 16:24 | <annevk> | Domenic_: for experienced developers, implementors, and editors |
| 16:28 | <jgraham> | annevk: I think you will have to organise that if you want it |
| 16:28 | <Ms2ger> | annevk, you'll be in Brussels, right? |
| 16:28 | <jgraham> | (I agree that it sounds like a nice idea) |
| 16:28 | Ms2ger | wonders if there's lists somewhere |
| 16:28 | <jgraham> | There is a spreadsheet I think, but I don't know where |
| 16:29 | <annevk> | jgraham: yeah, I think I might have to |
| 16:29 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: yeah, flying there tonight |
| 16:29 | <annevk> | Ms2ger: gonna try do some climbing during the day tomorrow, before the reception |
| 16:44 | <GPHemsley> | Anyone gonna be in Toronto? |
| 16:46 | <Ms2ger> | Presumably some people will be |
| 16:47 | <smaug____> | MikeSmith: don't tell me you broke Java->C++ conversion :) |
| 16:51 | <MikeSmith> | smaug____: heh :-) no, not me |
| 16:52 | <MikeSmith> | and if it's broke I think it's probably been broke for a long time it's just that nobody's tried it for a long time before you |
| 16:52 | <smaug____> | I'm trying to do some optimizations, and this java->c++ makes things a bit hard |
| 16:53 | <MikeSmith> | I can imagine |
| 17:00 | <MikeSmith> | Ms2ger, smaug____ : you know if there's a component for asm.js, or whatever place I shuold report a build failure for AsmJSModule.cpp ? |
| 17:00 | <Ms2ger> | MikeSmith, Core::JavaScript Engine |
| 17:01 | <MikeSmith> | thanks |
| 17:01 | <smaug____> | yeah, js stuff |
| 17:07 | <GPHemsley> | Ms2ger: I was wondering who was gonna say that. I should've known it'd've been you. |
| 18:14 | <gsnedders> | jgraham: If you do TestTWF-London early next year, avoid it being the end of March? :P |
| 18:20 | <Ms2ger> | GPHemsley, :) |
| 18:30 | <annevk> | Hixie_: "Thijs van der Vossen" provided that multiline placeholder use case, might want to acknowledge that |
| 19:49 | <Hixie_> | annevk: thanks! |
| 19:59 | <Hixie_> | who cares about form controls? |
| 20:00 | <Ms2ger> | Nobody! |
| 20:07 | <Hixie_> | https://www.webkit.org/team.html is sad |
| 20:09 | <Ms2ger> | Ha |
| 20:17 | <hober> | Hixie_: ? |
| 20:18 | <Ms2ger> | hober, its have you looked? |
| 20:18 | <Ms2ger> | Oh hey |
| 20:18 | <hober> | yes |
| 20:18 | <Ms2ger> | It's empty here |
| 20:18 | <Ms2ger> | [22:18:01.395] Blocked loading mixed active content "http://svn.webkit.org/repository/webkit/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/config/contributors.json"; @ https://www.webkit.org/team.html:267 |
| 20:19 | <Ms2ger> | Yeah, http://www.webkit.org/team.html is fine |
| 20:19 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie_, ^ |
| 20:19 | <hober> | works fine here |
| 20:19 | <Ms2ger> | You must use an insecure browser :) |
| 20:20 | <hober> | hah |
| 20:20 | <Ms2ger> | I'll guess Safari |
| 21:02 | <Hixie_> | ooh, works now |
| 21:02 | <Hixie_> | hober: either it was fixed or i just had a network issue |
| 21:03 | <Ms2ger> | Hixie_, it works without ssl |
| 21:03 | <Hixie_> | ohhh, i see |
| 21:04 | <Hixie_> | ah, yeah, i followed your link the second time |
| 21:09 | <Hixie_> | man, that page is quite out of date |
| 21:39 | <Hixie_> | there was some discussion recently about using code point lengths instead of code unit lengths for maxlength="" |
| 21:39 | <Hixie_> | anyone know where? i can't fidn it... |
| 21:40 | <Hixie_> | oh nm, found it |
| 21:40 | <Hixie_> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Aug/0322.html |
| 21:41 | <Hixie_> | hm, no reply yet |
| 21:42 | <Hixie_> | rniwa: ^ |
| 21:43 | <Hixie_> | (at the bottom) |
| 21:47 | <Hixie_> | should <input minlength="100" value="My question is..."> be conforming HTML? |
| 21:48 | <Hixie_> | how about <textarea minlength="100">Dear Sir,</textarea> ? |
| 21:52 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: ? |
| 21:52 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: we have minlength? |
| 21:52 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: i'm somewhat confused here. |
| 21:53 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: what exactly is your question? |
| 21:53 | <Hixie_> | minlength is a new feature being considered. it's unrelated to my pinging of you above, which was about the e-mail cited above. |
| 21:53 | <Hixie_> | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Aug/0322.html |
| 21:53 | <Hixie_> | it contains a reply to an e-mail you sent, wanted to make sure you'd seen it since nobody had since replied |
| 21:54 | <zewt> | given that maxlength prevents the user from entering text longer than its value, minlength seems weird--would it not let you backspace over text if it would go under? heh |
| 21:55 | <Hixie_> | it wouldn't be symmetric in behaviour |
| 22:10 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: sorry, I was distracted |
| 22:11 | <rniwa> | Hixie_: I don't have a strong opinion about conformance requirement |
![https://a1s.unicdn.net/polopoly_fs/1.300930.1351767812!/image/1987622790.jpg_gen/derivatives/265x210/1987622790.jpg"](https://a1s.unicdn.net/polopoly_fs/1.300930.1351767812!/image/1987622790.jpg_gen/derivatives/265x210/1987622790.jpg"){kind=link}