Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Friday, 21 March 2008
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
- RE: Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341
- RE: Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341
- SML References
- Draft proposal fro EPR Note: Issue 5341
Monday, 17 March 2008
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Friday, 14 March 2008
Thursday, 13 March 2008
- [Bug 5518] Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions
- [Bug 5542] How are SML URIs absolutized
- [Bug 5522] The term "containing element" is not clear
- [Bug 5530] Use consistent form for MIT URI
- [Bug 5532] The previous-draft links are out of date
- [Bug 5529] Calrify Appendix C
- [Bug 5528] xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary
- [Bug 5283] "interchange set" or "interchange model"
- [Bug 5564] recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored
- [Bug 5558] Definition & use of word Document
- [Bug 5558] Definition & use of word Document
- [Bug 5564] recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored
- [Bug 5564] recursive definition of DerefExpr should be restored
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
- [Bug 5562] SML should define an XHTML href Reference Scheme
- [Bug 5561] SML should define a Simple XLink Reference Scheme
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
Monday, 10 March 2008
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Friday, 7 March 2008
- [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI
- [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI
- RE: New Xpointer scheme proposed: smlxpath1
- [Bug 5546] Reconcile SML-IF with RFC 2557
- [Bug 5545] Reconcile SML URIs with RFC3986
- [Bug 5544] Why does SML require that the target of SMLURI be an XML element?
- [Bug 5543] SML URI seems overconstrained
- [Bug 5542] How are SML URIs absolutized
- [Bug 5541] Why is schema-less identification of reference elements important?
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
Thursday, 6 March 2008
- [Bug 5501] LC publication related editorial fixes
- [Bug 5526] What does "nested to any depth" mean?
- [Bug 5525] Confusing section names
- [Bug 5524] Rename section 4.4.1.1
- [Bug 5298] Consider using another term for 'URI scheme'
- [Bug 5521] The term "URI scheme" is confusing
- [Bug 5506] Link name for 5.5 Schema Document Bindings
- [Bug 5505] wrong type for schemaBinding/namespaceBinding/namespace attribute
- EPR TAG NOTE
- [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI
- [Bug 5521] The term "URI scheme" is confusing
- [Bug 5513] Why does SML define sml:ref instead of using XLink
- [Bug 5525] Confusing section names
- [Bug 5526] What does "nested to any depth" mean?
- [Bug 5527] Why is NCName optional?
- [Bug 5528] xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary
- [Bug 5529] Calrify Appendix C
- [Bug 5530] Use consistent form for MIT URI
- SML EPR Reference Scheme Note
- [w3c sml][agenda] [v2] 2008-03-06 SML Telecon
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
- [Bug 5532] The previous-draft links are out of date
- RE: New Xpointer scheme proposed: smlxpath1
- [Bug 5530] Use consistent form for MIT URI
- [Bug 5529] Calrify Appendix C
- [Bug 5528] xs:import for SML namespace is unnecessary
- [Bug 5527] Why is NCName optional?
- [Bug 5526] What does "nested to any depth" mean?
- [Bug 5525] Confusing section names
- [Bug 5524] Rename section 4.4.1.1
- [Bug 5523] Discuss the behavior of GET on URI
- [Bug 5522] The term "containing element" is not clear
- [Bug 5521] The term "URI scheme" is confusing
- [Bug 5520] Why is document defined as a character sequence?
- [Bug 5519] Relationship between SML model validity and XSD validity assessment needs to be precisely defined
- [Bug 5518] Why are rules allowed on both element declaration and type definitions
- [w3c sml][agenda] 2008-03-06 SML Telecon
- [w3c sml][minutes] 2008-01-21 SML F2F