xml-uri@w3.org from June 2000 by author

Al Gilman

• Re: what about XPath? was: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Friday, 16 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: jettisoning baggage (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• RE: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namespace [always] a [shared] resource? (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namespace [always] a [shared] resource? (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Is a namespace a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Philosphy 101 (Monday, 5 June)
• Namespaces aside, absolutizing is none of _X_Path's business (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: stepping backward (one more step) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: layering is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 3 June)
• layering is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• YAMP: ns-attr is a _mark_, not a _name_ for the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)

Andrew Layman

• RE: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• RE: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)

Arnold, Curt

• RE: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)

Bill dehOra

• RE: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Philosphy 101 (Tuesday, 6 June)

Clark C. Evans

• No more tangents (Was: A proposed solution) (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Literal Approach + Locality Warning (Was: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namespace [always] a [shared] resource? (Friday, 9 June)
• Making the namespace resource "real" (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Namespaces aside, absolutizing is none of _X_Path's business (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: layering is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: layering is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 3 June)
• Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Terminology (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)

Dan Brickley

• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)

Dan Connolly

• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Tuesday, 27 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Infererence by scheme (Re: namespace usage as assertions) (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• essential test cases? (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (base edge cases) (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... was: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• typo/bug in the namespace spec? [was: Mechanism, not policy...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)

Daniel Veillard

• Re: <a:b:c> and xlink (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• Personal view (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)

David Carlisle

• Re: Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Saturday, 24 June)
• <a:b:c> and xlink (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Infererence by scheme (Re: namespace usage as assertions) (Wednesday, 21 June)
• We need some function f (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: For literals: why I changed my mind (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: Personal view (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: No more tangents (Was: A proposed solution) (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Wednesday, 14 June)
• In praise of fixed base was: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• some uses of relative URI as namespace names (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• Microsoft tools (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Making the namespace resource "real" (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Reasons to use namespaces (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec? [was: Mechanism, not policy...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• href="foo" (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: on relative URI references (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: on relative URI references (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: on relative URI references (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: namespaces include their name => 1-1 (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: defaulting namespace attributes with relative URI references (Friday, 2 June)
• on relative URI references (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Comparing URI references as strings (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Thursday, 1 June)

David G. Durand

• Namespaces and infosets. (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Another endorsement of Dan Connolly's recent proposal (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Thank you Dan (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• RE: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Rehash of literal-vs-relative argument status (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Rehash of literal-vs-relative argument status (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• (no subject) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Friday, 9 June)
• On, and on, and on... was: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)

David Hunter

• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)

David Turner

• A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)

Don Park

• RE: essential test cases? (Saturday, 17 June)

Donald E. Eastlake 3rd

• Re: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Thursday, 8 June)

Eric Bohlman

• Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• RE: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: Standards vs. Recs (was RE: Divide the problem) (Thursday, 8 June)

Eric van der Vlist

• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)

Eve L. Maler

• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)

Frystyk

• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)

Graham Klyne

• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Is file:///foo a URI? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Reasons to use namespaces (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: stepping backward (one more step) (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: stepping backward (one more step) (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• RE: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Thursday, 1 June)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• Re: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Monday, 19 June)
• Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Sunday, 18 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: Literal Approach + Locality Warning (Was: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)

Henry S. Thompson

• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Tuesday, 27 June)

james anderson

• Re: Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)

James Clark

• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)

James O. Luke

• FW: D. Carlisle lone user (was : Microsoft tools) (Friday, 9 June)

Jelks Cabaniss

• RE: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 12 June)

John Aldridge

• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Fwd: Re: How namespace names might be used (Friday, 16 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Friday, 16 June)
• Personal view (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)

John Boyer

• RE: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Friday, 9 June)
• RE: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Thursday, 8 June)

John Cowan

• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: relative URIs and local lexical scopes: "Unique Base"? (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump andissues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Rehash of literal-vs-relative argument status (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... was: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Is a namespace a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Philosphy 101 (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: stepping backward (one more step) (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: stepping backward (one more step) (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Friday, 4 June)
• Re: Namespaces aside, absolutizing is none of _X_Path's business (Friday, 4 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Friday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Terminology (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: "data:,<name>" proposal adds an extra level (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: namespaces include their name => 1-1 (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the (Wednesday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)

Jonathan Borden

• Re: Local Context [was: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal] (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Documents, Anchors, Nodes and Context was: RE: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Compromise?: absolutize but require xml:base (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Wednesday, 7 June)
• well-structured? was: RE: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• red/green XML (Saturday, 3 June)
• RE: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)

Jonathan Marsh

• Base-less fears (was Moving On...) (Thursday, 1 June)

Julian Reschke

• RE: Fixed base (Thursday, 22 June)
• what about XPath? was: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• RE: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• RE: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• RE: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• RE: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• RE: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• RE: essential test cases? (Tuesday, 13 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Friday, 9 June)
• RE: Making the namespace resource "real" (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Making the namespace resource "real" (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• RE: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• RE: Banning relative - No real damage? (Tuesday, 6 June)
• RE: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)

keshlam@us.ibm.com

• Re: Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re Deprecate /Undefined ) (Monday, 26 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Monday, 26 June)
• Background material, belated (Monday, 26 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Friday, 23 June)
• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: For literals: why I changed my mind (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: For literals: why I changed my mind (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: what about XPath? was: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• (no subject) (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Is file:///foo a URI? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: some uses of relative URI as namespace names (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 14 June)
• RE: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: PUBLIC/SYSTEM distinction (was Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec) (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 13 June)
• RE: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: How are semantics named? (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 12 June)
• (no subject) (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 12 June)
• (no subject) (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Compromise?: absolutize but require xml:base (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namespace [always] a [shared] resource? (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Making the namespace resource "real" (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... was: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Uncertainty on xml-dev (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: how does XML Base affects well-formedness? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: red/green XML (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)

Larry Masinter

• relative URIs and local lexical scopes: "Unique Base"? (Saturday, 24 June)
• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 22 June)
• no flexibility in using looser comparison in RFC 2557 (Wednesday, 21 June)
• RE: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• RE: Personal view (Sunday, 18 June)
• RE: Is file:///foo a URI? (Thursday, 15 June)
• RE: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• RE: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• RE: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• RE: Philosphy 101 (Tuesday, 6 June)
• RFC 2557 (MHTML) uses byte-equality after absolutizing (Tuesday, 6 June)
• RE: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Philosphy 101 (Monday, 5 June)
• RE: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• RE: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• "data:,<name>" proposal adds an extra level (Friday, 2 June)
• namespaces include their name => 1-1 (Friday, 2 June)
• The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)

Liam Quin

• Re: Fixed base (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Fixed base (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Philosphy 101 (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)

Manola,Frank A.

• namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)

Michael Champion

• Re: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined ) (Tuesday, 27 June)
• Re: Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Monday, 26 June)
• The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined ) (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Closure (was Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec) (Sunday, 11 June)

Michael Mealling

• Re: (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• OID URN namespace.... (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: a personal conclusion..... (Friday, 2 June)
• a personal conclusion..... (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• a clarification? (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)

Michael Rys

• RE: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• RE: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Friday, 9 June)
• RE: Banning relative - No real damage? (Friday, 9 June)

Miles Sabin

• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Friday, 23 June)
• RE: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Saturday, 24 June)

Paul Grosso

• Re: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: We need some function f (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: XML Base and XPath absolutizing of URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: how does XML Base affects well-formedness? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• how does XML Base affects well-formedness? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)
• what "huge problem" with XML Base? [was: red/green XML] (Tuesday, 6 June)

Paul W. Abrahams

• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: For literals: why I changed my mind (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Can everyone be happy? (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Does every URI identify a resource? (Was:Re: namespace usage as assertions) (Wednesday, 21 June)
• The tail shouldn't wag the dog (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: For literals: why I changed my mind (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view) (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• For literals: why I changed my mind (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Friday, 16 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: jettisoning baggage (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• New text for Namespaces 2.0 (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 4 June)
• Namespaces and XML 2.0 (Was: XML 1.0 in flux) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Who cares if URI1=URI2 (Was: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: XML 1.0 in flux (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: (Friday, 2 June)

Rick JELLIFFE

• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Thursday, 29 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 7 June)

Sam Hunting

• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Yet Another Modest Proposal: [was] Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: XML 1.0 in flux (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)

Simon St.Laurent

• Why I moved from Forbid to Literal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (was Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined ) (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: vocabularies was: Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: Infererence by scheme (Re: namespace usage as assertions) (Thursday, 22 June)
• Tar and feathers for me (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Decentralization (was Re: Choose your namespace (Was : Personal view)) (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Infererence by scheme (Re: namespace usage as assertions) (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Tuesday, 20 June)
• Differentiating literal and forbid (Re: Personal view) (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: Personal view (Saturday, 17 June)
• Private address spaces and URIs (Friday, 16 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Friday, 16 June)
• RE: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Oops (was RE: A proposed solution) (Thursday, 15 June)
• RE: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: jettisoning baggage (Thursday, 15 June)
• jettisoning baggage (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: essential test cases? (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Implied best practices (was Re: How namespace names might be used) (Tuesday, 13 June)
• 1343 messages later (Monday, 12 June)
• RE: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 12 June)
• Spinning off interesting heresies (was Re: How are semantics named?) (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Annotation protocols [was: How namespace names might be used] (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: How are semantics named? (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: PUBLIC/SYSTEM distinction (was Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec) (Sunday, 11 June)
• What would be cool... (CONNEG vs. discovery) (Sunday, 11 June)
• PUBLIC/SYSTEM distinction (was Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec) (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec (Sunday, 11 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Friday, 9 June)
• Re: Compromise?: absolutize but require xml:base (Friday, 9 June)
• Standards vs. Recs (was RE: Divide the problem) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: On, and on, and on... (Thursday, 8 June)
• RE: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Divide the problem (Thursday, 8 June)
• General concerns (was Re: Request for status dump...) (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: RFC 2557 (MHTML) uses byte-equality after absolutizing (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: Namespaces aside, absolutizing is none of _X_Path's business (Sunday, 4 June)
• Re: fundamental difference? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: XML 1.0 in flux (Saturday, 3 June)
• fundamental differences? (again) (was The 'resource') (Saturday, 3 June)
• fundamental difference? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Can we get past these @#X! axioms? (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: a personal conclusion..... (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: a personal conclusion..... (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: defaulting namespace attributes with relative URI references (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• XML 1.0 in flux (Friday, 2 June)
• stepping backward (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• defaulting namespace attributes with relative URI references (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)

Stefan Eissing

• RE: The tail shouldn't wag the dog (Wednesday, 21 June)

Tim Berners-Lee

• Database example was: The Kesselman/Connoly proposal (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Saturday, 24 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Friday, 23 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Rehash of literal-vs-relative argument status (Monday, 19 June)
• Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: A proposed solution (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: (Thursday, 15 June)
• Re: Context and... Re: the case of two bats (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Layering XPath/XSLT namespaces is unacceptable (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: The "deprecate/fixed-base" option (Wednesday, 14 June)
• Re: 1343 messages later (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: Annotation protocols [was: How namespace names might be used] (Monday, 12 June)
• Annotation protocols [was: How namespace names might be used] (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Mechanism, not policy [was: Attribute uniqueness...] (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Request for status dump and issues check (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: rel:foo for those who can't do without 'relative' URIs (Thursday, 8 June)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Wednesday, 7 June)
• Re: Common Sense! Was: Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: on relative URI references (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Is a namesapce a resource? - was: duck (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Re: red/green XML (Tuesday, 6 June)
• Banning relative - No real damage? (Monday, 5 June)
• Re: a clarification? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: namespaces include their name => 1-1 (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: fundamental difference? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: on relative URI references (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: The 'resource' identified by a namespace name URI should be the namespace (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Base-less fears (was Moving On...) (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Friday, 2 June)
• Re: (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Chaos, Process (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Thursday, 1 June)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Thursday, 1 June)

Tim Bray

• I have a dream (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: Re Deprecate/Undefined (was Request for status dump and issues check) (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?) (Sunday, 25 June)
• Re: namespace usage as assertions (Wednesday, 21 June)
• Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used (Monday, 19 June)
• Worth repeating (Monday, 19 June)
• Re: Personal view (Saturday, 17 June)
• Re: Annotation protocols [was: How namespace names might be used] (Tuesday, 13 June)
• How are semantics named? (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML" (Monday, 12 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Sunday, 11 June)
• How namespace names might be used (Saturday, 10 June)
• More nervousness about NS Names bearing semantics (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: typo/bug in the namespace spec (Saturday, 10 June)
• Re: Banning relative - No real damage? (Wednesday, 7 June)

W. E. Perry

• Re: Local Context [was: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal] (Friday, 30 June)
• Local Context [was: Why I moved from Forbid to Literal] (Friday, 30 June)
• Re: Can everyone be happy? (Thursday, 22 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: How namespace names might be used (Tuesday, 13 June)
• Re: fundamental difference? (Saturday, 3 June)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Thursday, 1 June)

Last message date: Friday, 30 June 2000 19:18:59 UTC