21 Nov
2018
21 Nov
'18
5:36 p.m.
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
encountered
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
A. Remove completely the validation check
pros:
* the easiest one
* apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
cons:
* IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
<br />
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
pros:
* same as for A
cons:
* ?
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
pros:
* ?
cons:
* we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
pros:
* remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
* can maybe be used to present them in another way?
cons:
* need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
I'd personnaly vote like this:
A: +0
B: +1
C: -1
D: +0
WDYT?
Simon
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
21 Nov
21 Nov
5:46 p.m.
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one.
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
A. Remove completely the validation check
pros:
* the easiest one
* apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
cons:
* IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
<br />
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
pros:
* same as for A
cons:
* ?
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
pros:
* ?
cons:
* we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
pros:
* remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
* can maybe be used to present them in another way?
cons:
* need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
I'd personnaly vote like this:
A: +0
B: +1
C: -1
D: +0
WDYT?
Simon
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
22 Nov
22 Nov
9:50 a.m.
A: 0
B: +1, depends on how you detect it's a translation page
C: 0
F: +0 (if we have extra time, ok)
Le mer. 21 nov. 2018 à 17:46, Adel Atallah <adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> a
écrit :
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
--
Guillaume Delhumeau (guillaume.delhumeau(a)xwiki.com)
Research & Development Engineer at XWiki SAS
Committer on the XWiki.org project
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one.
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
A. Remove completely the validation check
pros:
* the easiest one
* apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
cons:
* IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
<br />
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
pros:
* same as for A
cons:
* ?
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
encountered
pros:
* ?
cons:
* we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
pros:
* remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
* can maybe be used to present them in another way?
cons:
* need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
I'd personnaly vote like this:
A: +0
B: +1
C: -1
D: +0
WDYT?
Simon
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
9:56 a.m.
On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah
<adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just remove WCAG for that
and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right thing to do for people with
disabilities.
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings advantages for people with
disabilities and then we can remove it. No need to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we should keep it, even
for translations pages since I don’t see why people with disabilities shouldn’t be able to
use translation pages. There are some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue
and Thomas mentioned one too (it’s option D).
C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for technical reasons it’s already hard to ensure
that we pass WCAG for user pages and thus FTM we focus only on those ones and we agree
that we don’t pass WCAG for developer-oriented features, with the goal of improving on
that aspect in the future. And thus we disable WCAG checks on technical pages (hidden
pages) for now.
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one. C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
>
>
> A. Remove completely the validation check
>
> pros:
> * the easiest one
> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
>
> cons:
> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
> <br />
>
> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
>
> pros:
> * same as for A
>
> cons:
> * ?
>
> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
>
> pros:
> * ?
>
> cons:
> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
>
> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>
> pros:
> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
> * can maybe be used to present them in another way?
>
> cons:
> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
>
> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> A: +0
> B: +1
> C: -1
> D: +0
>
> WDYT?
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com 
10:22 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah
<adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just remove WCAG for
that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right thing to do for people with
disabilities.
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings advantages for people with
disabilities and then we can remove it. No need to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we should keep it, even
for translations pages since I don’t see why people with disabilities shouldn’t be able to
use translation pages. There are some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue
and Thomas mentioned one too (it’s option D).
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one. C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for technical
reasons it’s already hard to ensure that we pass WCAG for user pages and thus FTM we focus
only on those ones and we agree that we don’t pass WCAG for developer-oriented features,
with the goal of improving on that aspect in the future. And thus we disable WCAG checks
on technical pages (hidden pages) for now.
Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something that would make a
lot of sense.
Thanks
-Vincent
--
Thomas Mortagne
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
>
>
> A. Remove completely the validation check
>
> pros:
> * the easiest one
> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
>
> cons:
> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
> <br />
>
> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
>
> pros:
> * same as for A
>
> cons:
> * ?
>
> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
>
> pros:
> * ?
>
> cons:
> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
>
> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>
> pros:
> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
> * can maybe be used to present them in another way?
>
> cons:
> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
>
> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> A: +0
> B: +1
> C: -1
> D: +0
>
> WDYT?
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
26 Nov
26 Nov
8:13 a.m.
On 22/11/2018 10:22, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
+1 for that
On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah
<adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just remove WCAG for
that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right thing to do for people with
disabilities.
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings advantages for people with
disabilities and then we can remove it. No need to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we should keep it, even
for translations pages since I don’t see why people with disabilities shouldn’t be able to
use translation pages. There are some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue
and Thomas mentioned one too (it’s option D).
Hi everyone,
one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about consecutive
line breaks: basically a <br /><br /> presents in a page.
This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try to
sum-up here:
A. Remove completely this validation check
-0, I think the validation can be useful at least to keep good practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one. C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for
technical reasons it’s already hard to ensure that we pass WCAG for user pages and thus
FTM we focus only on those ones and we agree that we don’t pass WCAG for
developer-oriented features, with the goal of improving on that aspect in the future. And
thus we disable WCAG checks on technical pages (hidden pages) for now.
Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something that would make a
lot of sense.
Thanks
-Vincent
C. Triggers the error only if more than 2
consecutive breaks is
encountered
-1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly done.
D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to
translation pages
+1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
>
>
> A. Remove completely the validation check
>
> pros:
> * the easiest one
> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
>
> cons:
> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not using
> <br />
>
> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
>
> pros:
> * same as for A
>
> cons:
> * ?
>
> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is encountered
>
> pros:
> * ?
>
> cons:
> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
>
> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>
> pros:
> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in translations
> * can maybe be used to present them in another way?
>
> cons:
> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
>
> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> A: +0
> B: +1
> C: -1
> D: +0
>
> WDYT?
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com 
noon
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just remove WCAG
for that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right
thing to do for people with disabilities.
> On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah <adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon
Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about
consecutive
>> line breaks: basically a <br
/><br /> presents in a page.
>>
>> This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
>> plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
>> Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
>> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
>>
>> Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
>>
>> Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try
to
>> sum-up here:
>>
>> A. Remove completely this validation check
> -0, I think the validation can be
useful at least to keep good
practices.
B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one.
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings
advantages for
people with disabilities and then we can remove it. No need
to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we
should keep
it, even for translations pages since I don’t see why people
with disabilities shouldn’t be able to use translation pages. There are
some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue and Thomas
mentioned one too (it’s option D).
C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for
technical reasons it’s
already hard to ensure that we pass WCAG for user pages and
thus FTM we
focus only on those ones and we agree that we don’t pass WCAG for
developer-oriented features, with the goal of improving on that aspect in
the future. And thus we disable WCAG checks on technical pages (hidden
pages) for now.
Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something that
would make a
lot of sense.
I agree. The issue is that we can have hidden pages that:
* are not displayed by default (I'm thinking panels)
* are included / displayed dynamically with JavaScript so they won't appear
in the HTML downloaded by our WCAG tests (I'm thinking of async panels and
modals for instance)
So they won't be covered.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
>> encountered
>
> -1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but badly
done.
>
>> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>
> +1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
>
>>
>>
>> A. Remove completely the validation check
>>
>> pros:
>> * the easiest one
>> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test, so
>> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
>>
>> cons:
>> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not
using
>> <br />
>>
>> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
>>
>> pros:
>> * same as for A
>>
>> cons:
>> * ?
>>
>> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
encountered
>>
>> pros:
>> * ?
>>
>> cons:
>> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for style
>> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
>> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
>>
>> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
>>
>> pros:
>> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in
translations
> *
can maybe be used to present them in another way?
>
> cons:
> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
>
> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> A: +0
> B: +1
> C: -1
> D: +0
>
> WDYT?
>
> Simon
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
12:29 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:00 PM Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:22 AM Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
Yes, we just need to have a filter a little bit more advanced than
"hidden=false". We could imagine a white list of xclasses (which would
have priority over "hidden=false" filter).
Now for the specific panels use case we actually have a place where
they are all displayed and validated all at once: the administration.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
remove WCAG
for that and it’s the simplest ;)) but about being the right
thing to do for people with disabilities.
> On 21 Nov 2018, at 17:46, Adel Atallah <adel.atallah(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:36 PM Simon
Urli <simon.urli(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> one of the most validation error we have with WCAG is about
consecutive
>> line breaks: basically a <br
/><br /> presents in a page.
>>
>> This happens mostly in our translation pages since the linebreaks in
>> plain syntax are translated in <br /> tags.
>> Caty provided a lot of details about this error on the related issue:
>> https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-15666.
>>
>> Currently we have around 140 validations failure because of this.
>>
>> Different proposal have been made in order to fix it, that I will try
to
>> sum-up here:
>>
>> A. Remove completely this validation check
> -0, I think the validation can be
useful at least to keep good
practices.
> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
+1, simplest one.
Note that the question is not so much about being simple (we can just
For me we have the following options:
A) We don’t think that this check is useful, ie that it brings
advantages for
people with disabilities and then we can remove it. No need
to add exceptions.
B) We think the check is useful for people with disabilities and we
should keep
it, even for translations pages since I don’t see why people
with disabilities shouldn’t be able to use translation pages. There are
some ideas to fix this: I listed some in the jira issue and Thomas
mentioned one too (it’s option D).
C) Now I’m fine if we say the following: for
technical reasons it’s
already hard to ensure that we pass WCAG for user pages and
thus FTM we
focus only on those ones and we agree that we don’t pass WCAG for
developer-oriented features, with the goal of improving on that aspect in
the future. And thus we disable WCAG checks on technical pages (hidden
pages) for now.
Excluding hidden page for now is indeed something
that would make a
lot of sense.
I agree. The issue is that we can have hidden pages that:
* are not displayed by default (I'm thinking panels) * are included / displayed dynamically with JavaScript
so they won't appear
in the HTML downloaded by our WCAG tests (I'm thinking of async panels and
modals for instance)
Validating DOM generated in javascript is indeed a problem we already
have. Now for the few cases which are actually wiki pages included
asynchronously and which don't fit in a generic xclass based filter we
could add them trough the existing URL list property.
About async panels, most of them are also cached which means they are
really asyn only when loading the first page (when the framework find
a cached content is return it instead of putting an async
placeholder).
So they won't be covered.
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Vincent
> >
> > >
> > >> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
> > >> encountered
> > >
> > > -1, it doesn't really makes sense to do that, it's like B. but
badly
> done.
> > >
> > >> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
> > >
> > > +1, could be a good idea but might be complicated.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> A. Remove completely the validation check
> > >>
> > >> pros:
> > >> * the easiest one
> > >> * apparently the rule is not checked in other accessibility test,
so
> > >> its real purpose for accessibility is unclear
> > >>
> > >> cons:
> > >> * IMO this rule is useful for checking the good practice of not
> using
> > >> <br />
> > >>
> > >> B. Add an exception for the translation pages
> > >>
> > >> pros:
> > >> * same as for A
> > >>
> > >> cons:
> > >> * ?
> > >>
> > >> C. Triggers the error only if more than 2 consecutive breaks is
> encountered
> > >>
> > >> pros:
> > >> * ?
> > >>
> > >> cons:
> > >> * we would miss some consecutive <br /> that are used only for
style
> > >> and we would catch some others in translations if we do 3 linebreaks
> > >> instead of 2. IMO it's only moving the problem
> > >>
> > >> D. Create a rendering syntax dedicated to translation pages
> > >>
> > >> pros:
> > >> * remove completely the problem of consecutive <br /> in
> translations
> > >> * can maybe be used to present them in another way?
> > >>
> > >> cons:
> > >> * need to develop/test/maintain a new rendering syntax
> > >>
> > >> I'd personnaly vote like this:
> > >> A: +0
> > >> B: +1
> > >> C: -1
> > >> D: +0
> > >>
> > >> WDYT?
> > >>
> > >> Simon
> > >> --
> > >> Simon Urli
> > >> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> > >> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> > >> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
>
--
Thomas Mortagne
2176
days inactive
2181
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Adel Atallah -
Guillaume Delhumeau -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Simon Urli -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol