Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[Simon Bailey]

You know what confuses me though over all this, why hasn't Adobe  
cached the Flex framework in the Flash Player?  An additional 500k on  
the player download would be a miniscule inconvenience in time for the  
user, the way it stands the time added reflects poorly on the actual  
Flex application.


 Releases of the flex framework sdk for caching and flash player  
releases are not so often for that to be a hurdle, surely?


If Adobe are (a) reluctant to release statistics on how many players  
have the framework cached and (b) not going to help push these stats  
up by caching the framework in the player, its going to be a constant  
concern for the developer.



On 27 Apr 2009, at 09:30, Kenneth Sutherland wrote:





Hmmm, maybe it’s just me and I’ve missed that bit of info from  
before but I’ve never heard/read anything about Google not being  
able to index a SWF if you use the RSL feature on the framework.  
This seems like a fairly major step to get over ( I may have to go  
back and rebuild some of my SWFs so that they will now get indexed)  
if you want the number of SWFs that use the framework feature to go  
up.  All info I’ve seen out there suggests Google can index any SWF.




I bet most clients are more sensitive to their data not being index  
than being slightly bloated.




Kenneth.



From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com]  
On Behalf Of Matt Chotin

Sent: 24 April 2009 21:52
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration







Yes, that’s what it means unfortunately.  I don’t have a info on  
timing, it’s really up to them.



On 4/24/09 12:51 AM, "Kenneth Sutherland" > wrote:








Does that mean that any swf you create that uses the flex framework  
RSLs are not going to get indexed by Google.
I’ve created a very simple placeholder page (single front page with  
just a few text boxes and a link) and as usual I make the framework  
into a RSL(total overkill in this situation, but I like to do it as  
standard). So I’ve just checked the site using googles search and  
its showing the ‘Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1.’ in the listing of  
search results.


If so any ideas what is Googles timescale on indexing sites that use  
RSLs.


Cheers.


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com]  
On Behalf Of Matt Chotin

Sent: 23 April 2009 01:38
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration






This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from the  
SWF.  Something that they’re working on.


Matt


On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu"  wrote:







Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google  
engine working with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach  
for the website that use signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1  
of 1." Any comments for this


--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders 
%40yahoogroups.com> , Matt Chotin  wrote:

>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them  
hosted in the public beta.

>
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far as  
being consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing  
them.

>
> Matt
>
>
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a selling  
point. The number of users who already have the SWZs should be  
icing, the real substance should be the benifit to every user  
visiting your site/app. Obviously if you only expect users to visit  
once or twice the benifit doesn't work out.

>
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first install  
is that there are new files for each update of the Flex Framework. I  
am currently on my third set of SWZs in my production environment. I  
would like to see Adobe host the files as an added benifit to using  
them.

>
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number of  
installed players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be  
additional info to help sell the idea to clients.

>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell to  
my current clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger  
download for first time users.

>
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already have  
the different versions of the RSLs would be handy.

>
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe as  
they want to encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download  
size story longer term.

>
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade or  
install the player, Adobe ought to download and install all the  
current RSLs as well. That seems a very sensi

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[Kenneth Sutherland]

Hmmm, maybe it's just me and I've missed that bit of info from before
but I've never heard/read anything about Google not being able to index
a SWF if you use the RSL feature on the framework. This seems like a
fairly major step to get over ( I may have to go back and rebuild some
of my SWFs so that they will now get indexed) if you want the number of
SWFs that use the framework feature to go up.  All info I've seen out
there suggests Google can index any SWF.

 

I bet most clients are more sensitive to their data not being index than
being slightly bloated.

 

Kenneth.

 

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 24 April 2009 21:52
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

 






Yes, that's what it means unfortunately.  I don't have a info on timing,
it's really up to them.


On 4/24/09 12:51 AM, "Kenneth Sutherland"
 wrote:


  

  

  
Does that mean that any swf you create that uses the flex
framework RSLs are not going to get indexed by Google.
I've created a very simple placeholder page (single front page
with just a few text boxes and a link) and as usual I make the framework
into a RSL(total overkill in this situation, but I like to do it as
standard). So I've just checked the site using googles search and its
showing the 'Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1.' in the listing of search
results.
 
If so any ideas what is Googles timescale on indexing sites that
use RSLs.
 
Cheers.
 

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 23 April 2009 01:38
    To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration






This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from
the SWF.  Something that they're working on.

Matt


On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu"  wrote:



  

  

Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google
engine working with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for
the website that use signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1."
Any comments for this

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , Matt Chotin  wrote:
>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them
hosted in the public beta.
> 
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far
as being consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing
them.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a
selling point. The number of users who already have the SWZs should be
icing, the real substance should be the benifit to every user visiting
your site/app. Obviously if you only expect users to visit once or twice
the benifit doesn't work out.
> 
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first
install is that there are new files for each update of the Flex
Framework. I am currently on my third set of SWZs in my production
environment. I would like to see Adobe host the files as an added
benifit to using them.
> 
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number
of installed players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be
additional info to help sell the idea to clients.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell
to my current clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger
download for first time users.
> 
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already
have the different versions of the RSLs would be handy.
> 
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe
as they want to encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download
size story longer term.
> 
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade
or install the player, Adobe ought to download and install all the
current RSLs as well. That seems a very sensible idea to me.
> 
> Even if they were a separate download available at the time
(or available as a "Flash player p

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[Matt Chotin]

Yes, that's what it means unfortunately.  I don't have a info on timing, it's 
really up to them.


On 4/24/09 12:51 AM, "Kenneth Sutherland"  
wrote:







Does that mean that any swf you create that uses the flex framework RSLs are 
not going to get indexed by Google.
I've created a very simple placeholder page (single front page with just a few 
text boxes and a link) and as usual I make the framework into a RSL(total 
overkill in this situation, but I like to do it as standard). So I've just 
checked the site using googles search and its showing the 'Error #2032. RSL 
Error 1 of 1.' in the listing of search results.

If so any ideas what is Googles timescale on indexing sites that use RSLs.

Cheers.


From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 23 April 2009 01:38
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration






This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from the SWF.  
Something that they're working on.

Matt


On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu"  wrote:






Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google engine working 
with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for the website that use 
signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1." Any comments for this

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , Matt 
Chotin  wrote:
>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them hosted in the 
> public beta.
>
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far as being 
> consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing them.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a selling point. The 
> number of users who already have the SWZs should be icing, the real substance 
> should be the benifit to every user visiting your site/app. Obviously if you 
> only expect users to visit once or twice the benifit doesn't work out.
>
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first install is that 
> there are new files for each update of the Flex Framework. I am currently on 
> my third set of SWZs in my production environment. I would like to see Adobe 
> host the files as an added benifit to using them.
>
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number of installed 
> players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be additional info to 
> help sell the idea to clients.
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell to my current 
> clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger download for first 
> time users.
>
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already have the 
> different versions of the RSLs would be handy.
>
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe as they want to 
> encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download size story longer term.
>
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade or install the 
> player, Adobe ought to download and install all the current RSLs as well. 
> That seems a very sensible idea to me.
>
> Even if they were a separate download available at the time (or available as 
> a "Flash player professional" version) it would be better than forcing 
> developers distributing apps to do it. We have app size as an imperative that 
> we have to work with.
>
> Guy
>
> On 22/04/2009, at 4:19 AM, Steve Mathews wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It would only be bigger the first download (assuming the user has 9.0.115.0 
> or later). After that it would be smaller each time.
>
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Guy Morton  wrote:
>
>
> Well...yes, it's great if I do it...for the community n'all...but my users 
> *are* sensitive to the download size.
>
> If it were the same size either way, of course I would do it (as would 
> everyone) but the fact that it's BIGGER as RSLs means I bet LOTS of 
> developers DON'T do it, hence my question...
>
> Guy
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 6:19 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 21 Apr 2009, g...@... wrote:
> > Maybe it's worth doing if 50%+ of users will get the benefit, but if
> > only 10% will benefit it seems unlikely to be a way to increase the
> > general happiness.
>
> I think you are looking at it wrong. Assuming 200k is nothing on a modern
> connection - I don't know anything about your users of course :-)
> With RSL 

RE: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[Kenneth Sutherland]

Does that mean that any swf you create that uses the flex framework RSLs
are not going to get indexed by Google.

I've created a very simple placeholder page (single front page with just
a few text boxes and a link) and as usual I make the framework into a
RSL(total overkill in this situation, but I like to do it as standard).
So I've just checked the site using googles search and its showing the
'Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1.' in the listing of search results.

 

If so any ideas what is Googles timescale on indexing sites that use
RSLs.

 

Cheers.

 

From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:flexcod...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Matt Chotin
Sent: 23 April 2009 01:38
To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

 






This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from the SWF.
Something that they're working on.

Matt


On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu"  wrote:


  

  

Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google
engine working with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for
the website that use signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1."
Any comments for this

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , Matt Chotin  wrote:
>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them
hosted in the public beta.
> 
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far
as being consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing
them.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a
selling point. The number of users who already have the SWZs should be
icing, the real substance should be the benifit to every user visiting
your site/app. Obviously if you only expect users to visit once or twice
the benifit doesn't work out.
> 
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first
install is that there are new files for each update of the Flex
Framework. I am currently on my third set of SWZs in my production
environment. I would like to see Adobe host the files as an added
benifit to using them.
> 
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number
of installed players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be
additional info to help sell the idea to clients.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell
to my current clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger
download for first time users.
> 
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already
have the different versions of the RSLs would be handy.
> 
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe
as they want to encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download
size story longer term.
> 
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade
or install the player, Adobe ought to download and install all the
current RSLs as well. That seems a very sensible idea to me.
> 
> Even if they were a separate download available at the time
(or available as a "Flash player professional" version) it would be
better than forcing developers distributing apps to do it. We have app
size as an imperative that we have to work with.
> 
> Guy
> 
> On 22/04/2009, at 4:19 AM, Steve Mathews wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would only be bigger the first download (assuming the user
has 9.0.115.0 or later). After that it would be smaller each time.
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Guy Morton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it's great if I do it...for the community
n'all...but my users *are* sensitive to the download size.
> 
> If it were the same size either way, of course I would do it
(as would everyone) but the fact that it's BIGGER as RSLs means I bet
LOTS of developers DON'T do it, hence my question...
> 
> Guy
> 
> 
> On 21/04/2009, at 6:19 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 21 Apr 2009, g...@... wrote:
> > Maybe it's worth

Re: [flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[Matt Chotin]

This is due to Google not yet executing network requests from the SWF.  
Something that they're working on.

Matt


On 4/21/09 11:19 PM, "bsyyu"  wrote:






Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google engine working 
with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for the website that use 
signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1." Any comments for this

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com  , Matt 
Chotin  wrote:
>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them hosted in the 
> public beta.
>
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far as being 
> consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing them.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a selling point. The 
> number of users who already have the SWZs should be icing, the real substance 
> should be the benifit to every user visiting your site/app. Obviously if you 
> only expect users to visit once or twice the benifit doesn't work out.
>
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first install is that 
> there are new files for each update of the Flex Framework. I am currently on 
> my third set of SWZs in my production environment. I would like to see Adobe 
> host the files as an added benifit to using them.
>
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number of installed 
> players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be additional info to 
> help sell the idea to clients.
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell to my current 
> clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger download for first 
> time users.
>
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already have the 
> different versions of the RSLs would be handy.
>
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe as they want to 
> encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download size story longer term.
>
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade or install the 
> player, Adobe ought to download and install all the current RSLs as well. 
> That seems a very sensible idea to me.
>
> Even if they were a separate download available at the time (or available as 
> a "Flash player professional" version) it would be better than forcing 
> developers distributing apps to do it. We have app size as an imperative that 
> we have to work with.
>
> Guy
>
> On 22/04/2009, at 4:19 AM, Steve Mathews wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It would only be bigger the first download (assuming the user has 9.0.115.0 
> or later). After that it would be smaller each time.
>
>
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Guy Morton  wrote:
>
>
> Well...yes, it's great if I do it...for the community n'all...but my users 
> *are* sensitive to the download size.
>
> If it were the same size either way, of course I would do it (as would 
> everyone) but the fact that it's BIGGER as RSLs means I bet LOTS of 
> developers DON'T do it, hence my question...
>
> Guy
>
>
> On 21/04/2009, at 6:19 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 21 Apr 2009, g...@... wrote:
> > Maybe it's worth doing if 50%+ of users will get the benefit, but if
> > only 10% will benefit it seems unlikely to be a way to increase the
> > general happiness.
>
> I think you are looking at it wrong. Assuming 200k is nothing on a modern
> connection - I don't know anything about your users of course :-)
> With RSL you either load quicker (win) or have to download app+RSL (same as
> non-RSL), plus you have the benefit of making your (and others !) future RSL
> deployments more likely to be win.
>
>
> --
> Helping to synergistically streamline proactive cross-platform seamless
> ubiquitous interfaces as part of the IT team of the year, '09 and '08
>
>
> Tom Chiverton
> Developer
> Tel: +44 0161 618 5032
> Fax: +44 0161 618 5099
> tom.chiver...@...
>
> 3 Hardman Square, Manchester, M3 3EB
> www.Halliwells.com 
> 
>
> This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
>
> Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and 
> Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at 
> Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list 
> of members is available for inspection at the registered office together with 
> a list of those non members who are referred to as partners. We use the word 
> ?partner? to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with 
> equivalent standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors 
> Regulation Authority.
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY
>
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may 
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the 

[flexcoders] Re: Signed RSL penetration

[bsyyu]

Apart from the size matter, we encounter the problem for Google engine working 
with signed RSL matter , the result of Google Serach for the website that use 
signed RSL with "Error #2032. RSL Error 1 of 1." Any comments for this

--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Matt Chotin  wrote:
>
> We're hosting the RSLs starting with Flex 4, you'll see them hosted in the 
> public beta.
> 
> When we feel comfortable with the RSL penetration stats as far as being 
> consistent and accurate and explainable we'll begin publishing them.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> On 4/21/09 11:01 PM, "Steve Mathews"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offence was intended, I was trying to state that as a selling point. The 
> number of users who already have the SWZs should be icing, the real substance 
> should be the benifit to every user visiting your site/app. Obviously if you 
> only expect users to visit once or twice the benifit doesn't work out.
> 
> The problem with Adobe including the files with the first install is that 
> there are new files for each update of the Flex Framework. I am currently on 
> my third set of SWZs in my production environment. I would like to see Adobe 
> host the files as an added benifit to using them.
> 
> I would also be interested in seeing some stats on the number of installed 
> players that have one or more SWZs cached as it would be additional info to 
> help sell the idea to clients.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Guy Morton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, I know how it works...my point is that it's hard to sell to my current 
> clients if for most it's going to translate into a bigger download for first 
> time users.
> 
> This is why stats as to how many users are likely to already have the 
> different versions of the RSLs would be handy.
> 
> I realise this is probably strategically sensitive for Adobe as they want to 
> encourage use of RSLs as it improves the Flex download size story longer term.
> 
> Someone made the suggestion somewhere that when users upgrade or install the 
> player, Adobe ought to download and install all the current RSLs as well. 
> That seems a very sensible idea to me.
> 
> Even if they were a separate download available at the time (or available as 
> a "Flash player professional" version) it would be better than forcing 
> developers distributing apps to do it. We have app size as an imperative that 
> we have to work with.
> 
> Guy
> 
> On 22/04/2009, at 4:19 AM, Steve Mathews wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would only be bigger the first download (assuming the user has 9.0.115.0 
> or later). After that it would be smaller each time.
> 
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Guy Morton  wrote:
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it's great if I do it...for the community n'all...but my users 
> *are* sensitive to the download size.
> 
> If it were the same size either way, of course I would do it (as would 
> everyone) but the fact that it's BIGGER as RSLs means I bet LOTS of 
> developers DON'T do it, hence my question...
> 
> Guy
> 
> 
> On 21/04/2009, at 6:19 PM, Tom Chiverton wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 21 Apr 2009, g...@... wrote:
> > Maybe it's worth doing if 50%+ of users will get the benefit, but if
> > only 10% will benefit it seems unlikely to be a way to increase the
> > general happiness.
> 
> I think you are looking at it wrong. Assuming 200k is nothing on a modern
> connection - I don't know anything about your users of course :-)
> With RSL you either load quicker (win) or have to download app+RSL (same as
> non-RSL), plus you have the benefit of making your (and others !) future RSL
> deployments more likely to be win.
> 
> 
> --
> Helping to synergistically streamline proactive cross-platform seamless
> ubiquitous interfaces as part of the IT team of the year, '09 and '08
> 
> 
> Tom Chiverton
> Developer
> Tel: +44 0161 618 5032
> Fax: +44 0161 618 5099
> tom.chiver...@...
> 
> 3 Hardman Square, Manchester, M3 3EB
> www.Halliwells.com 
> 
> 
> This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP.
> 
> Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and 
> Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at 
> Halliwells LLP, 3 Hardman Square, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3EB. A list 
> of members is available for inspection at the registered office together with 
> a list of those non members who are referred to as partners. We use the word 
> ?partner? to refer to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with 
> equivalent standing and qualifications. Regulated by the Solicitors 
> Regulation Authority.
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY
> 
> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may 
> be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must 
> not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor 
> inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or th