public-grddl-comments@w3.org from April to June 2007 by author

Andrew Eisenberg

• Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?] (Monday, 25 June)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Monday, 25 June)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (Wednesday, 2 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Wednesday, 2 May)
• Comments on GRDDL (Saturday, 28 April)

Ben Adida

• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Saturday, 26 May)

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)

• RE: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Thursday, 28 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Tuesday, 19 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline [OK?] (Friday, 15 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline (Friday, 15 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element (Friday, 15 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element (Tuesday, 12 June)
• issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element (Tuesday, 12 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed [OK?] (Tuesday, 12 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed (Tuesday, 5 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Thursday, 31 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed (Wednesday, 30 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Wednesday, 30 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Tuesday, 29 May)
• issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Tuesday, 29 May)
• issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed (Friday, 25 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Friday, 25 May)
• issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Friday, 25 May)
• issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline (Friday, 25 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft (Friday, 25 May)
• Minor editorial issue: variable defined but not used (Thursday, 10 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-faithful-infoset, XProc) (Wednesday, 2 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-faithful-infoset, XProc) (Wednesday, 2 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (Wednesday, 2 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-output-formats) (Tuesday, 1 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (Monday, 30 April)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (Monday, 30 April)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (Monday, 30 April)
• Comments on GRDDL draft (Friday, 27 April)

Chimezie Ogbuji

• Re: Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases (Wednesday, 13 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Wednesday, 30 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Wednesday, 2 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (Wednesday, 2 May)
• Re: Javascript and GRDDL [#issue-whichlangs] (Sunday, 1 April)

Clark, John

• RE: Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases (Wednesday, 13 June)
• RE: Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases (Wednesday, 13 June)

Dan Connolly

• Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?] (Monday, 25 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-4f: Sec 4, base IRI of an element [closed] (Tuesday, 19 June)
• Re: Minor editorial issue: variable defined but not used [OK?] (Tuesday, 19 June)
• RE: issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline [CLOSED] (Monday, 18 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed (Wednesday, 30 May)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Wednesday, 30 May)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (#issue-faithful-infoset ) (Tuesday, 29 May)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Wednesday, 23 May)
• Re: GRDDL Spec is not neutral with respect to the mechanism used to extract RDF [CLOSED] (Thursday, 17 May)
• Re: GRDDL Spec is not neutral with respect to the mechanism used to extract RDF (Wednesday, 16 May)
• Re: Some comments re: microformats [OK?] (Wednesday, 16 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-faithful-infoset, XProc) (Wednesday, 2 May)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-output-formats) (Tuesday, 1 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (using 3rd-party XML schemas with GRDDL) [OK?] (Tuesday, 1 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Tuesday, 1 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (Monday, 30 April)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-faithful-infoset, XProc) (Monday, 30 April)
• RE: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (#issue-output-formats) (Monday, 30 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL draft [OK?] (Friday, 27 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: editorial informal comments on editor's draft (Friday, 6 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (whitespace) (Friday, 6 April)
• Re: editorial informal comments on editor's draft (Thursday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document) (Wednesday, 4 April)
• Re: RDF Model vs Serialization (Language) [OK?] (Wednesday, 4 April)

Dave Beckett

• Re: Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases (Saturday, 30 June)
• Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases (Wednesday, 13 June)
• Re: base-uri and XSLT 1.0 [OK?] (Tuesday, 5 June)
• base-uri and XSLT 1.0 (Saturday, 5 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (Friday, 27 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document) (Friday, 27 April)
• Re: EARL output for Raptor 1.4.15 tests with 2007-03-28 WD (Friday, 27 April)
• Re: EARL output for Raptor 1.4.15 tests with 2007-03-28 WD (Tuesday, 24 April)
• EARL output for Raptor 1.4.15 tests with 2007-03-28 WD (Tuesday, 24 April)
• Raptor 1.4.15 testing with GRDDL Tests Cases W3C Working Draft 28th March 2007 (Tuesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (whitespace) (Monday, 9 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document) (Monday, 9 April)
• Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (Wednesday, 4 April)

Diego Berrueta

• Re: GRDDL and SWD (Monday, 30 April)
• Re: another GRDDL spec review (Monday, 30 April)
• another GRDDL spec review (Wednesday, 25 April)
• GRDDL and SWD (Wednesday, 25 April)

Elias Torres

• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Thursday, 24 May)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Wednesday, 23 May)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Wednesday, 23 May)

Harry Halpin

• Re: Comments on GRDDL [OK?] (Sunday, 24 June)
• Re: Some comments re: microformats (Wednesday, 20 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Tuesday, 19 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (#issue-faithful-infoset ) (Wednesday, 30 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Tuesday, 29 May)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (Tuesday, 29 May)
• RE: issue-dbooth-10: Does an XML namespace necessarily imply semantics? (Friday, 25 May)
• Re: Javascript and GRDDL [#issue-whichlangs] (Wednesday, 25 April)

Hausenblas, Michael

• RE: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Thursday, 24 May)

Jeremy Carroll

• Re: Raptor 1.4.16-pre testing with GRDDL Test Cases [OK?] (Thursday, 21 June)
• Please review new base appendix of GRDDL spec (Thursday, 21 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-9c: Base URI should only be required if needed [OK?] (Tuesday, 12 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline (Tuesday, 12 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-9a: GRDDL should be usable in a messaging pipeline [OK?] (Tuesday, 12 June)
• Re: base-uri and XSLT 1.0 [OK?] (Monday, 4 June)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Monday, 4 June)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A [NOT A FORMAL COMMENT] (Monday, 4 June)
• Re: issue-dbooth-3: Ambiguity in an XML document's intended GRDDL results (#issue-faithful-infoset ) (Wednesday, 30 May)
• Re: base-uri and XSLT 1.0 (Friday, 25 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL (transformation failure case) (Friday, 25 May)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Thursday, 24 May)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: another GRDDL spec review (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: GRDDL and SWD (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: GRDDL and SWD (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: Comments on GRDDL W3C Working Draft 2 March 2007 (namespac document) (Thursday, 26 April)
• Re: EARL output for Raptor 1.4.15 tests with 2007-03-28 WD (Wednesday, 25 April)
• [CLOSED] Re: editorial informal comments on editor's draft (Monday, 23 April)

José Manuel Cantera Fonseca

• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Thursday, 24 May)
• GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Wednesday, 23 May)
• Re: GRDDL Spec is not neutral with respect to the mechanism used to extract RDF (Wednesday, 16 May)
• GRDDL Spec is not neutral with respect to the mechanism used to extract RDF (Friday, 11 May)

Keith Alexander

• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Saturday, 26 May)
• Re: GRDDL profile for RDF-A (Wednesday, 23 May)

Ryan King

• Re: Some comments re: microformats (Wednesday, 20 June)
• Some comments re: microformats (Thursday, 10 May)

Stefano Mazzocchi

• Re: Javascript and GRDDL [#issue-whichlangs] (Wednesday, 25 April)
• Re: Javascript and GRDDL [#issue-whichlangs] (Sunday, 1 April)

Last message date: Saturday, 30 June 2007 04:03:26 UTC