<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/11/2012 09:32, Axel Grude wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50B5DA27.1080301@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Bump! <br>
<br>
I was kind of busy the last weeks, but if you need me on the
Tuesday call to decide on this I will try to attend next time.<br>
</blockquote>
This doesn't need to be a meeting decision (though obviously can be
raised there if you want). I think as no-one is commenting, you can
just take that as pretty much everyone is happy.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50B5DA27.1080301@gmail.com" type="cite">
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_50AA7BDA_2000406_googlemail_com"
cite="mid:50AA7BDA.2000406@googlemail.com" type="cite"> Can we
have a decision on<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tb-amo-category-improvements">https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tb-amo-category-improvements</a>
<br>
<br>
pretty please? And would flash be under "browsing", "reading" or
"misecallaneus" ?? I think I listed them in the "To Be
Discussed" list.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I don't have any objections, the list is reasonable and I think
overall we're giving more options to users when they are searching.<br>
<br>
I think flash could be under any of those categories - but we'd
probably leave it up to the author to decide (i.e. we'd just get
them added).<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Mark<br>
</body>
</html>