public-iri@w3.org from June 2012 by author

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: why use IRIs? (Thursday, 21 June)
• Re: "plain text" vs. "running text" (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure (Wednesday, 6 June)

iri issue tracker

• [iri] #129: IANA Considerations (Monday, 11 June)
• Re: [iri] #128: use of the term 'origin' (Monday, 11 June)
• [iri] #128: use of the term 'origin' (Monday, 11 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Monday, 11 June)
• Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory? (Thursday, 7 June)
• [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory? (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #108: Add 'submitter' and 'owner' columns to 'URI/IRI Scheme Registration Template' (Wednesday, 6 June)
• [iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions (Monday, 4 June)

John C Klensin

• Re: rfc3987bis and RFC 6365 (Friday, 8 June)
• Re: rfc3987bis and RFC 6365 (Friday, 8 June)
• Re: "plain text" vs. "running text" (Friday, 8 June)

Larry Masinter

• Re: [iri] #128: use of the term 'origin' (Saturday, 16 June)
• RE: 3987bis: IANA considerations (Friday, 8 June)
• RE: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Friday, 8 June)

Martin J. Dürst

• Re: why use IRIs? (Monday, 25 June)
• Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory? (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure (Wednesday, 6 June)

Peter Saint-Andre

• IRI agenda items for IETF 84 (Friday, 29 June)
• Re: why use IRIs? (Friday, 29 June)
• Fwd: iri - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 84 (Friday, 29 June)
• why use IRIs? (Thursday, 21 June)
• Re: [iri] #128: use of the term 'origin' (Monday, 18 June)
• Re: rfc3987bis and RFC 6365 (Friday, 8 June)
• Re: "plain text" vs. "running text" (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: rfc3987bis and RFC 6365 (Thursday, 7 June)
• 3987bis: IANA considerations (Thursday, 7 June)
• "plain text" vs. "running text" (Thursday, 7 June)
• 3987bis: "origin" (Thursday, 7 June)
• rfc3987bis and RFC 6365 (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory? (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Wednesday, 6 June)
• 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: [iri] #64: Disallow registration of URI schemes with generic names 'uri', 'url', etc. (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: [iri] #125: Clarify scope of scheme specifications to be <scheme-specific-part> only (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: [iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions (Wednesday, 6 June)
• Re: [iri] #119: Move some IANA-related text from 3987bis to 4395bis (Tuesday, 5 June)
• Re: [iri] #111: should scheme definitions explicitly define equivalence (Tuesday, 5 June)
• Re: [iri] #123: coordinate URI/IRI scheme prefix discussion with W3C HTML WG (Tuesday, 5 June)
• Re: [iri] #126: Fragments are part of URIs syntactically, but not part of URI scheme definitions (Monday, 4 June)
• meeting in Vancouver (Monday, 4 June)

Ted Hardie

• Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory? (Thursday, 7 June)
• Re: [iri] #69: Several issues in Introduction of 4395bis (Thursday, 7 June)

Last message date: Friday, 29 June 2012 19:35:31 UTC