public-sml@w3.org from April 2008 by author

bugzilla@farnsworth.w3.org

• [Bug 5520] Why is document defined as a character sequence? (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5524] Rename section 4.4.1.1 (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5524] Rename section 4.4.1.1 (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5657] Define implementation-defined and -dependent, use consistently (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5341] EPR Reference Scheme Note (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5635] impl-defined and impl-dependent used, but not defined (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5659] schemaComplete default value (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5658] restore accidental change to smlif:identityType (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5657] Define implementation-defined and -dependent, use consistently (Thursday, 24 April)
• [Bug 5657] Define implementation-defined and -dependent, use consistently (Wednesday, 23 April)
• [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink (Wednesday, 23 April)
• [Bug 5636] why prohibit rules on local decls/defs described by other specs? (Wednesday, 23 April)
• [Bug 5656] Defining interoperability for user-defined reference schemes (Tuesday, 22 April)
• [Bug 5653] Final vocabulary clean-up (Tuesday, 22 April)
• [Bug 5341] EPR Reference Scheme Note (Sunday, 20 April)
• [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5522] The term "containing element" is not clear (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5542] How are SML URIs absolutized (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5524] Rename section 4.4.1.1 (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5518] Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5546] Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557 (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5530] Use consistent form for MIT URI (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5527] Why is NCName optional? (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5519] Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5544] Why does SML require that the target of SMLURI be an XML element? (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5543] SML URI seems overconstrained (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5562] SML should define an XHTML href Reference Scheme (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5520] Why is document defined as a character sequence? (Friday, 18 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5606] Update spec to clarify SML reference resolution (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5475] Add acknowledgement sections to match SML spec (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5451] acknowledge past contributors (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5546] Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557 (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5544] Why does SML require that the target of SMLURI be an XML element? (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5543] SML URI seems overconstrained (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5520] Why is document defined as a character sequence? (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5519] Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5645] remove spurious ns1 binding from appendix A and reflow line (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5606] Update spec to clarify SML reference resolution (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5526] What does "nested to any depth" mean? (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5587] Redundant text "interchange set" (Thursday, 17 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5636] why prohibit rules on local decls/defs described by other specs? (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5645] remove spurious ns1 binding from appendix A and reflow line (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5528] xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5580] re-define SML URI scheme in terms of xs:anyURI type (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5527] Why is NCName optional? (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5525] Confusing section names (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5564] recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5451] acknowledge past contributors (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5475] Add acknowledgement sections to match SML spec (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [Bug 5341] EPR Reference Scheme Note (Monday, 14 April)
• [Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme (Friday, 11 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5637] inconsistencies in language for rule attachment to schema components (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5341] EPR Reference Scheme Note (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5635] impl-defined and impl-dependent used, but not defined (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5542] How are SML URIs absolutized (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5530] Use consistent form for MIT URI (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5526] What does "nested to any depth" mean? (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5522] The term "containing element" is not clear (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5519] Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5518] Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5638] fix consistency of language for schematron constraints (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5637] inconsistencies in language for rule attachment to schema components (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5636] why prohibit rules on local decls/defs described by other specs? (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5635] impl-defined and impl-dependent used, but not defined (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5635] impl-defined and impl-dependent used, but not defined (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Thursday, 10 April)
• [Bug 5506] Link name for 5.5 Schema Document Bindings (Tuesday, 8 April)
• [Bug 5475] Add acknowledgement sections to match SML spec (Tuesday, 8 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Tuesday, 8 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Tuesday, 8 April)
• [Bug 5518] Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5390] How to handle non-embedded documents referenced by EPRs in SML-IF (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986 (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5390] How to handle non-embedded documents referenced by EPRs in SML-IF (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model" (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5519] Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5600] request for additional examples (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5600] request for additional examples (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5600] request for additional examples (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5520] Why is document defined as a character sequence? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5598] title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath Extension Function (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5598] title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath Extension Function (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5598] title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath Extension Function (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5598] title of section 4.2.7, deref() XPath Extension Function (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5544] Why does SML require that the target of SMLURI be an XML element? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5527] Why is NCName optional? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5543] SML URI seems overconstrained (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important? (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5558] Definition & use of word Document (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5558] Definition & use of word Document (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5580] re-define SML URI scheme in terms of xs:anyURI type (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme' (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5599] use of sml:acyclic (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5599] use of sml:acyclic (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5599] use of sml:acyclic (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5546] Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557 (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5546] Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557 (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5587] Redundant text "interchange set" (Friday, 4 April)
• [Bug 5606] Update spec to clarify SML reference resolution (Friday, 4 April)

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

• draft response on bug 5562 (Tuesday, 22 April)

John Arwe

• Re: RFC 2557 & SML-IF (Wednesday, 30 April)
• [w3c sml][agenda][v2] 2008-05-01 SML Telecon (Tuesday, 29 April)
• [w3c sml][minutes] 2008-04-24 SML Teleconference (Tuesday, 29 April)
• Fw: [w3c sml][agenda][ver 2] 2008-04-17 SML telecon agenda (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [w3c sml][minutes] 2008-04-10 SML Teleconference (Wednesday, 16 April)
• [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-17 SML telecon agenda (Tuesday, 15 April)
• regrets for 4/24 (Monday, 14 April)
• [w3c sml] [minutes] 2008-03-31 ot 2008-04-02 Face to Face minutes (Wednesday, 9 April)

Kumar Pandit

• RFC 2557 & SML-IF (Tuesday, 29 April)
• RE: draft response on bug 5562 (Thursday, 24 April)
• RE: SML interop test plan (Wednesday, 16 April)
• SML interop test plan (Friday, 11 April)

Lynn, James (HP Software)

• Regrets for tomorrow - 4/24 (Wednesday, 23 April)
• RE: [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-17 SML telecon agenda (Thursday, 17 April)

Nirmit Desai

• CFP: Mashups'08 @ ICSOC (Wednesday, 23 April)

Pratul Dublish

• RE: [w3c sml][agenda][v2] 2008-04-24 SML Telecon (Thursday, 24 April)
• [w3c sml][minutes] 2008-04-17 SML Teleconference (Thursday, 24 April)
• [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-24 SML Telecon (Thursday, 24 April)
• [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-10 SML Telecon (Saturday, 5 April)

Smith, Virginia (HP Software)

• RE: SML interop test plan (Wednesday, 16 April)
• RE: SML interop test plan (Tuesday, 15 April)
• [w3c sml] [minutes] 2008-03-27 Teleconference minutes (Wednesday, 2 April)

Wilson, Kirk D

• [w3c sml] [EPR Note] Response to Comment #9, Issue 5431 (Thursday, 24 April)
• RE: draft response on bug 5562 (Wednesday, 23 April)
• RE: [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-17 SML telecon agenda (Thursday, 17 April)
• RE: SML interop test plan (Thursday, 17 April)
• RE: [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-04-17 SML telecon agenda (Tuesday, 15 April)
• [w3c sml] [EPR Note] New version of EPR Note (Monday, 14 April)
• [w3c sml] [EPR Note] New draft (Thursday, 10 April)

Last message date: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:37:17 UTC