JavaScript 2015?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
65 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JavaScript 2015?

Axel Rauschmayer
I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?

1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015.

The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities:

* If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly.
* Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

kangax
I think JavaScript 6 will only make things more confusing (remember JavaScript 1.7, 1.8, etc. in Mozilla?).

More and more people learn what ECMAScript is. ES6 / ECMAScript 6 seems the most appropriate (and least surprising) name.

-- 
kangax

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?

1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015.

The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities:

* If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly.
* Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Angel Java Lopez
"The new JavaScript: ECMAScript 6"?

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Juriy Zaytsev <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think JavaScript 6 will only make things more confusing (remember JavaScript 1.7, 1.8, etc. in Mozilla?).

More and more people learn what ECMAScript is. ES6 / ECMAScript 6 seems the most appropriate (and least surprising) name.

-- 
kangax

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?

1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015.

The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities:

* If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly.
* Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JavaScript 2015?

Domenic Denicola
In reply to this post by Axel Rauschmayer
The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015.

As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has!

* hopefully.

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Matthew Robb
Honestly though, to the largest portion of JavaScript developers, the least surprising name would be `JavaScript 2.0`


- Matthew Robb

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Domenic Denicola <[hidden email]> wrote:
The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015.

As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has!

* hopefully.

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JavaScript 2015?

Domenic Denicola

That term is kind of poisoned it seems:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+2.0

 

 

From: Matthew Robb [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 16:40
To: Domenic Denicola
Cc: Axel Rauschmayer; es-discuss list; Kyle Simpson
Subject: Re: JavaScript 2015?

 

Honestly though, to the largest portion of JavaScript developers, the least surprising name would be `JavaScript 2.0`


 

- Matthew Robb

 

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Domenic Denicola <[hidden email]> wrote:

The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015.

As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has!

* hopefully.


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

 


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Axel Rauschmayer
In reply to this post by Domenic Denicola
The spec is no longer called ES6. The marketing hasn’t really begun to educate the community about this yet, but the spec is called ES 2015.

OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then?

As for your concern about 2015 seeming old in 2016: **good**. In 2016, we’ll be publishing ES 2016, and ES 2015 will be missing a lot* of stuff that ES 2016 has!

* hopefully.

Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good. It took people a long time to get used to ES5 and ES 2015 will have many more new features. It will take time to:

* Completely implement ES 2015
* Write proper material
* Educate people
* Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules)

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JavaScript 2015?

Domenic Denicola
From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:[hidden email]]

> OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then?

I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion.

> Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good.

Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :).

* not actually sorry.

> * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules)

This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Jaydson Gomes
There's a lot of projects, articles and materials out there using the "ES6" nomenclature.
I don't think changing the name right now, close to the final release, and when people are already familiarized with the name is good approach.
What is the point?
Using the year in the version name remind me Windows.

On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:[hidden email]]

> OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then?

I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion.

> Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good.

Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :).

* not actually sorry.

> * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules)

This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Kevin Smith
In reply to this post by Axel Rauschmayer
FWIW, here's the rule of thumb that I tend to use:

- When referring to the language in general, it's Javascript or JS.
- When referring to a specific version of the language, it's ESx (e.g. ES5, ES6, ES7).
- When referring to the specification itself (e.g. in proposals), it's ECMAScript.


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?

1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015.

The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities:

* If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly.
* Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

// ravi
In reply to this post by Jaydson Gomes


Anyone want to venture a guess on what percentage of JavaScript developers (and then, from there, developers who use other languages) have heard of ES or ECMAScript?

        —ravi

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: JavaScript 2015?

Arthur Stolyar
In reply to this post by Axel Rauschmayer
Hi,

I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the "Harmony" name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work.

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Andrea Giammarchi-2
In reply to this post by Jaydson Gomes
agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!!

Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision?

I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ?

Thanks for any sort of clarification



On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Jaydson Gomes <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's a lot of projects, articles and materials out there using the "ES6" nomenclature.
I don't think changing the name right now, close to the final release, and when people are already familiarized with the name is good approach.
What is the point?
Using the year in the version name remind me Windows.

On Thu Jan 22 2015 at 8:14:28 PM Domenic Denicola <[hidden email]> wrote:
From: Axel Rauschmayer [mailto:[hidden email]]

> OK, good to know. Does it make sense to normally refer to it as “JavaScript 2015”, then?

I don't really think so, but I don't have a storng opinion.

> Even ignoring books, I don’t share that attitude: for programming languages, a slower pace is good.

Well, I'm sorry* the committee plans to disappoint you then :).

* not actually sorry.

> * Establish modules (I’m seeing browser APIs based on promises, but none that are based on modules)

This is just further reflection of the idea that spec version numbers are fictional and what matters is implementation progress. Promises are established because they've been implemented for a long time now. Modules aren't even close to being implemented anywhere. Saying they're both part of the same Word document is a true, but useless, statement.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss



_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Brendan Eich-2
In reply to this post by Arthur Stolyar
"Harmony" refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from
ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until "done" ;-). See

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html

ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor
could it. The "Harmony" name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming
languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed
under Apache auspices.

FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as

http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

(which goes to "7" ;-).

Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 =
ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the "Harmony"
umbrella, I trust.

/be

Arthur Stolyar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter,
> why then you dropped the "Harmony" name? It was using for a while,
> then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird.
> Argument about features does not work.
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Brendan Eich-2
In reply to this post by Andrea Giammarchi-2
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> agreed and not only, it took years before various engines fully
> implemented ES5 so saying years later that an engine is fully
> compliant with a year in the past feels so wrong !!!
>
> Why is that? Where is the thread that explains this decision?
>
> I mean ... how should I call my browser that is not 100% compliant
> with HTML5, a fully compliant HTML 1997 browser ?

Of course this question arose with respect to HTML5, which was nowhere
near "done" (is it yet?) before marketeers at browser vendors started
touting compatibility and various players hyped the orange shield. (And
then Hixie said it was a living spec, version-free. :-P)

The reason to label editions or releases is not to give marketeers some
brand suffix with which to tout or hype. It's to organize a series of
reasonably debugged specs that implementors have vetted and (partly or
mostly) implemented.

I agree it would be best if (partly or mostly) were "fully", but that's
not practical with big "catch-up" specs. With "rapid-er release" annual
editions, it should be a goal, IMNSHO. That's the promised land we seek:
implementor- and developer-tested draft matter that "sticks" and *then*
gets the de-jure stamp of approval.

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Re: JavaScript 2015?

Domenic Denicola
In reply to this post by Arthur Stolyar

Harmony = everything after ES4’s disharmony. ES5 is part of Harmony, as is ES 2015, as is ES 2016, and everything further. It’s not dropped.

 

From: es-discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arthur Stolyar
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 18:55
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Re: JavaScript 2015?

 

Hi,

 

I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the "Harmony" name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work.

 

--


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Brendan Eich-2
In reply to this post by Brendan Eich-2
Brendan Eich wrote:

> The reason to label editions or releases is not to give marketeers
> some brand suffix with which to tout or hype. It's to organize a
> series of reasonably debugged specs that implementors have vetted and
> (partly or mostly) implemented.
>
> I agree it would be best if (partly or mostly) were "fully", but
> that's not practical with big "catch-up" specs. With "rapid-er
> release" annual editions, it should be a goal, IMNSHO. That's the
> promised land we seek: implementor- and developer-tested draft matter
> that "sticks" and *then* gets the de-jure stamp of approval.

The WHATWG "living spec" alternative eschews any series of spec
snapshots, favoring just a bleeding edge that implementors constantly chase.

This ideal has real-world issues! Perhaps Boris Zbarsky or someone else
will comment on them. I'm out of time and not motivated, since for JS,
we will promulgate an evolving series of spec editions, from ES6 =
ES2015 onward at an annual cadence.

Part of the benefit of the cadence, which resonates with faster software
rapid-release schedules such as Chrome's and then Firefox's: you avoid
schedule chicken by waving off anything unready till the next "train".
There's always another one coming, and no way to delay, so it doesn't
pay to pretend to be more "done" than you really are.

The rapid-release approach still requires skill and art to get right and
avoid missing a train (always a set-back and embarrassment, as in real
life).

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Andrea Giammarchi-2
In reply to this post by Brendan Eich-2
Books already published, years of blog-posts all over the internet educating developers about ES6 features. A clear deadline in terms of features instead of year since by the end of 2015 I am pretty sure no engine will be fully spec-compliant with the spec.

What is this new "back to year-versioning" approach?

Why suddenly we need a full new release each year when it took 15 years to have full ES3 support from all vendors?

This feels like Adobe and the AS1 to AS3 era, the one that lost most developers due inability to catch up with anything and confusion across just specs.

And that was a single "vendor" proposing new features for its language, I cannot imagine where this is going.

/rant

Best Regards










On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Brendan Eich <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Harmony" refers to the whole post-ES4 consensus-based arc of specs from ES5 (neé 3.1) onward into the future, until "done" ;-). See

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html

ECMAScript Harmony never referred to a specific edition of ECMA-262, nor could it. The "Harmony" name is used in nearby sub-fields of programming languages and software, e.g., the open source Java libraries developed under Apache auspices.

FWIW, ES6 is a known thing, in view of sites such as

http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/

(which goes to "7" ;-).

Still, we can probably educate people and spread the word that ES6 = ECMAScript 2015, ES7 = ECMAScript 2016, etc. All under the "Harmony" umbrella, I trust.

/be


Arthur Stolyar wrote:
Hi,

I now version does not matter but implementation and features matter, why then you dropped the "Harmony" name? It was using for a while, then ES6 was using for a while, now you wants new name. Sounds weird. Argument about features does not work.

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Brendan Eich-2
Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> I really don't understand ...

I'm pretty sure you do understand -- you just don't like it.

The annual cycle may fail, but that would be "bad". If it works out, we
could still continue with ES6, 7, 8, etc.

I'm leery of revolutionary fanaticism of the kind that led the French
revolutionaries to invent new month names. Perhaps we're overreaching by
declaring ES2015 before we've even wrapped up ES6, never mind
implemented all of it in top browsers! You could be calling b.s. on
this, please tell me if I'm "warm".

Anyway, I agree "ES6" is out there. I cited kangax.github.io, and of
course you're right, there are other sites and tutorials. The ES5/6/...
pattern won't go away over night, no matter what bloody revolutionaries
try to enact :-|.

This should keep everyone from charging ahead with renaming right now.
We need to socialize the annuals idea more, and actually hit the
schedule. At that point we *will* have ES6 = ES2015, ES7 = (probably)
2016, etc. -- twice the number of names to keep straight.

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JavaScript 2015?

Mark Volkmann
In reply to this post by Kevin Smith
I do the same as Kevin.

---
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.

On Jan 22, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Kevin Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, here's the rule of thumb that I tend to use:

- When referring to the language in general, it's Javascript or JS.
- When referring to a specific version of the language, it's ESx (e.g. ES5, ES6, ES7).
- When referring to the specification itself (e.g. in proposals), it's ECMAScript.


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’m in the process of coming up with a good title for a book on ECMAScript 6. That begs the question: What is the best way to refer to ECMAScript 6?

1. The obvious choices: ECMAScript 6 or ES6.
2. Suggested by Allen [1]: JavaScript 2015.

The advantage of #2 is that many people don’t know what ECMAScript 6 is. However, I’m worried that a book that has “2015” in its title will appear old in 2016. And the year scheme completely breaks with current tradition. I see two possibilities:

* If there is a concerted effort to establish “JavaScript 2015” then I would support that and name my book accordingly.
* Otherwise, JavaScript 6 is interesting: People who are aware of ECMAScript 6 will recognize it, but it will also mean something to people who don’t know what ECMAScript is. Is 2015, 2016, … really that much better than 6, 7, 8, … ? Would skipped years pose a problem for the former naming scheme?

Axel


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[hidden email]
rauschma.de




_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss


_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
1234