www-html@w3.org from January 2003 by author

Aaron Webb

Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)

Albert Lunde

Re: xhtml2 and user groups (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)

Alexander Savenkov

Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: <note> may be a good idea... was (Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element) (Thursday, 16 January)
Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re[4]: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re[2]: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re[2]: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Andrei Zlate-Podani

Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Tuesday, 28 January)
IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Sunday, 26 January)

Andrew Clover

Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: client-side include (Monday, 6 January)

Andrew McFarland

Re: HTML to XHTML translator (Wednesday, 15 January)

Aziz Matar

Pages won't validate as XHTML because of Char Encoding (Tuesday, 28 January)
XHTML 1.0 Table Problem (Thursday, 16 January)

Ben-Nes Michael

div & span (Friday, 17 January)

Bertilo Wennergren

(too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Boris Zbarsky

Re: input type= file problems (Friday, 31 January)
Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
Re: suggestion (Friday, 24 January)
Re: script tag - archive attribute (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: self-contained html file format (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Alternatives to 'style' attribute? (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Thursday, 9 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

Braden McDaniel

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)

Brant Langer Gurganus

Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: get selection from screen (Thursday, 2 January)
remove redundant title element (Wednesday, 1 January)

C.Bottelier

Re: Form controls outside of form blocks (Friday, 17 January)

Chris Casciano

What is wrong with xhtml 1.0? (Wednesday, 15 January)

Chris J. Norman

RE: XHTML 1.0 Table Problem (Thursday, 16 January)

Chris Mannall

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)

Christoph Päper

Re: table and ol combi (Friday, 24 January)

Christoph P�per

Re: WD-css3-text-20021024 substantive comments (Friday, 31 January)
Re: Tag Proposal: DATE (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Sunday, 19 January)
Re: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: different uses of xhtml (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: ABBR support (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)

Christoph Schneegans

Re: W3C MarkUp Area (Sunday, 5 January)

Claus Färber

Re: Promotion of XHTML (Thursday, 2 January)

Cory Shubert

Echo Zeldman (Wednesday, 15 January)

Curtis C. Hovey

Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

Daniel Glazman

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

David Dorward

Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

David Woolley

Re: Tag Proposal: DATE (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: Recommended Processing model for NOSCRIPT element (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Wednesday, 29 January)
Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: [OT] Pages won't validate as XHTML because of Char Encoding (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Monday, 27 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Friday, 24 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Monday, 20 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: Form controls outside of form blocks (Friday, 17 January)
Re: xhtml2 and user groups (Friday, 17 January)
Re: different uses of xhtml (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Copying HTML (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 1.0 = HTML 5.0? (was Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Thursday, 9 January)
Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: IFrame Resets (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: client-side include (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: client-side include (Monday, 6 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218 (Thursday, 2 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Thursday, 2 January)

Dervla O'Keeffe

HTML DTD (Friday, 10 January)

Devon Y.

Re: modification of the <dfn> element (Thursday, 30 January)
XHTML 1.0 = HTML 5.0? (was Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)
HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218 (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Sunday, 5 January)

Doug

just checking (Wednesday, 22 January)

Douglas Livingstone

Re: comments on 2002-12-12 XHTML 2.0 WD (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Thursday, 2 January)
Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218 (Wednesday, 1 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Wednesday, 1 January)

Etan Wexler

Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Friday, 10 January)
Goldfarb dancing on a pin head (Friday, 10 January)

fantasai

Re: modification of the <dfn> element (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Friday, 17 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Copying HTML (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)

Frans Dondorp

HTML forms and HTTP/WebDAV requests (Friday, 10 January)

Gannon J. Dick

Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: W3C MarkUp Area (Saturday, 4 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Thursday, 2 January)

HectorCS

Re: IFrame Resets (Wednesday, 8 January)

Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer

Re: confused (Friday, 24 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)

Ian Hickson

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
We don't need the style attribute (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Re[2]: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Thursday, 9 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Thursday, 9 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)
Re: ' Named Character Reference (Saturday, 4 January)

Ineke van der Maat

Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Fw: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)

Jared Warren

Tag Proposal: DATE (Thursday, 30 January)

Jean Joe

VeriPic(R) News (Friday, 17 January)

Jelks Cabaniss

RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
RE: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Jesus Arias Fisteus

Re: HTML to XHTML translator (Thursday, 16 January)
HTML to XHTML translator (Tuesday, 14 January)

Jim Dabell

[OT] Re: Pages won't validate as XHTML because of Char Encoding (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)

Johannes Koch

Re: table and ol combi (Friday, 24 January)

John Greenwood

Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)

John Lewis

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Friday, 24 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
XHTML 2.0 considered harmless (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Thursday, 2 January)

Jon Haworth

RE: XHTML 1.0 Table Problem (Thursday, 16 January)

Jonas Jørgensen

Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Monday, 27 January)
Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: script tag - archive attribute (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
[OT] IE 6 and the data: URL scheme (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 21 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: div & span (Friday, 17 January)
Re: <note> may be a good idea... was (Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element) (Friday, 17 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: What is wrong with xhtml 1.0? (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Jonathan Chetwynd

Re: Is this legal XHTML 1.1? (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: client-side include (Monday, 6 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)
client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

Jonny Axelsson

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: MIME links [was: self-contained html file format] (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)

Joris Huizer

Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
Re: table and ol combi (Friday, 24 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
table and ol combi (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Josh Haberman

Re: MIME links [was: self-contained html file format] (Friday, 24 January)
self-contained html file format (Wednesday, 22 January)

Kelvin Chung

My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Monday, 20 January)

kelvSYC

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)

Lachlan Cannon

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)

li zhang cis student

get selection from screen (Thursday, 2 January)

Lorenzo De Tomasi

define a goal for xhtml (Wednesday, 29 January)
Re: suggestion (Friday, 24 January)
define a goal for xhtml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: xhtml2 and user groups (Thursday, 16 January)
define a goal for xhtml [it was: 'different uses of xhtml' & 'xhtml2 and user groups'] (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: different uses of xhtml (Thursday, 16 January)
different uses of xhtml (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Re[4]: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)

Manoj Varghese thomas

RE: self-contained html file format (Wednesday, 22 January)

Mario Torres

Re: W3C MarkUp Area (Saturday, 4 January)

Masayasu Ishikawa

Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: HTML DTD (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

mfmartin@med2.unex.es

input type= file problems (Wednesday, 29 January)

Micah Dubinko

XHTML 2.0: Stay the course (Wednesday, 15 January)
Alternatives to 'style' attribute? (Wednesday, 15 January)

Mikko Rantalainen

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 28 January)
Style attribute (was: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Style attribute and BR vs L (was: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>? (Wednesday, 1 January)
Re: comments on 2002-12-12 XHTML 2.0 WD (Wednesday, 1 January)

Mjumbe Ukweli

modification of the <dfn> element (Thursday, 30 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)

Nick Boalch

Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
application/xhtml+xml (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Friday, 10 January)
Re: DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Thursday, 9 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: CSS alignment (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Sunday, 5 January)

Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design

Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Tuesday, 28 January)
' Named Character Reference (Saturday, 4 January)
W3C MarkUp Area (Saturday, 4 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>? (Thursday, 2 January)

Niklas Wahlberg

CSS alignment (Tuesday, 7 January)

oOÕ --- Le Castor --- ÕOo

Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Monday, 27 January)

PERUGINI, MICHAEL (SWBT)

IFrame Resets (Tuesday, 7 January)

Peter Foti (PeterF)

RE: Alternatives to 'style' attribute? (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: Promotion of XHTML (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Monday, 6 January)

Petr Baudis

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]

Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Wednesday, 29 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: different uses of xhtml (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: (too) special markup (was: Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: ABBR support (was Re: Promotion of XHTML) (Sunday, 12 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Friday, 10 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

popoola samuel

running programs (Friday, 31 January)

Richard Norman

I think I had an error sending... Sending again... (IE handling of XHTML doctype and namespace) (Tuesday, 28 January)
IE handling of XHTML doctype and namespace (sample) (Tuesday, 28 January)
IE handling of XHTML doctype and namespace (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: <note> may be a good idea.. (Friday, 17 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Thursday, 16 January)
<note> may be a good idea... was (Proposal for XHTML 2.0: The <footnote> element) (Thursday, 16 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0: Stay the course (Thursday, 16 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Friday, 10 January)
RE: Promotion of XHTML (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: W3C MarkUp Area (Monday, 6 January)

Rick [Kitty5]

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Rie Beam

Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Rob Larsen

Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)

Robert Koberg

RE: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)

Roland Bluethgen

Re: script tag - archive attribute (Friday, 24 January)
Re: script tag - archive attribute (Thursday, 23 January)
Re: self-contained html file format (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: div & span (Friday, 17 January)

Ron Woodall

Re: DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Friday, 10 January)
DTD and schema - what's the difference? (Thursday, 9 January)
SGML relationships (Tuesday, 7 January)

Russell O'Connor

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Thursday, 30 January)
Campaign for new SHORTTAG in HTML 4 (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Friday, 10 January)
Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)
RE: Promotion of XHTML (Tuesday, 7 January)
RE: Promotion of XHTML (Monday, 30 December)
Re: client-side include (Tuesday, 7 January)

Sampo Syreeni

Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Wednesday, 29 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)

Sander Tekelenburg

Re: ABBR support (was Re: Promotion of XHTML) (Sunday, 12 January)
ABBR support (was Re: Promotion of XHTML) (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Wednesday, 1 January)

SCJessey@aol.com

Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)

seshadri te

Recommended Processing model for NOSCRIPT element (Tuesday, 28 January)

Shaddy Baddah

Form controls outside of form blocks (Friday, 17 January)

Simon Hill

Re: Style Attribute (Was: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)

Simon Jessey

Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Wednesday, 29 January)
Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: Pages won't validate as XHTML because of Char Encoding (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)
re: confused (Friday, 24 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: External links in XHTML 1.1 (Saturday, 18 January)
External links in XHTML 1.1 (Friday, 17 January)
RE: div & span (Friday, 17 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)

Simon St.Laurent

ANN: xml-hypertext mailing list (Thursday, 16 January)

Sjoerd Visscher

The src attribute (Sunday, 26 January)

Stephen Battey

Re: script tag - archive attribute (Thursday, 30 January)
script tag - archive attribute (Monday, 20 January)

Steven Pemberton

Re: Duplicated web page contents (Wednesday, 8 January)

Tantek Çelik

Re: WD-css3-text-20021024 substantive comments (Friday, 31 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0: Stay the course (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Proposed additions to XHTML 1.0 Appendix C (was Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it?) (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: ABBR support (was Re: Promotion of XHTML) (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: Promotion of XHTML (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Tuesday, 7 January)

Ted Callander

Re: Default Submit Button (Wednesday, 8 January)

Thomas W. Krafft

Three design-related (HTML or CSS) elements for your consideration (Wednesday, 15 January)

Tim Bagot

RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
RE: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: client-side include (Sunday, 5 January)

Timothy Luoma

Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)

Toby A Inkster

Re: running programs (Friday, 31 January)
Re: Marking Up Acronym and Abbreviations (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Tuesday, 28 January)
Re: IFRAME placed in wrong DTD (Monday, 27 January)
Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2 (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Thursday, 16 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Wednesday, 15 January)
Re: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful (Tuesday, 14 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Thursday, 9 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it? (Wednesday, 8 January)
Re: get selection from screen (Thursday, 2 January)

Toby Inkster

Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218 (Wednesday, 1 January)
Re: <hr /> and WD-xhtml2-20021218 (Wednesday, 1 January)

Tom Gilder

Re: application/xhtml+xml (Friday, 17 January)

Veith Risak

xhtml2 and user groups (Thursday, 16 January)

Vix

MIME links [was: self-contained html file format] (Wednesday, 22 January)
Re: HTML to XHTML translator (Thursday, 16 January)

Vlad Giszpenc

RE: suggestion (Friday, 24 January)
suggestion (Friday, 24 January)

Webmaster, Musikcafeen

Re: XHTML doctype and namespace lookups overwhelm w3.org servers? (Sunday, 26 January)

Willard

confused (Friday, 24 January)

William F Hammond

Reserved frame names in non-strict HTML 4.01/XHTML 1.0 (Saturday, 18 January)
Re: Campaign for new SHORTTAG in HTML 4 (Wednesday, 15 January)

Wingnut

Re: Style attribute and BR vs L (was: XHTML 2.0 considered harmful) (Wednesday, 15 January)

Last message date: Friday, 31 January 2003 15:02:10 UTC