uri@w3.org from February 2004 by author

Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature

• Re: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: More test cases to be confirmed (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: More test cases to be confirmed (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: Http and RFC-2396 (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: Host header (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: localhost (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: localhost (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• localhost (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Sunday, 15 February)

Al Gilman

• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• fragment prose proposal (Wednesday, 25 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: FW: fragment prose proposal (Sunday, 29 February)
• Re: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)

Black_David@emc.com

• RE: SNMP URI and 2396bis (Monday, 9 February)
• SNMP URI and 2396bis (Sunday, 8 February)
• FW: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt (Friday, 6 February)

by way of Martin Duerst

• Re: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: URI Generic Syntax doc (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03) (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: URI Generic Syntax doc (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03) (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Friday, 6 February)
• RE: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: userinfo%20allowed%20in%20http%20URI%20or%20not (Monday, 2 February)

Clive D.W. Feather

• Re: feedback on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: encoding related phrasing (Monday, 9 February)

Dan Connolly

• Re: More test cases to be confirmed (Thursday, 19 February)

Daniel Barclay

• Re: feedback on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: feedback on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Monday, 9 February)

Eric Burger

• RE: Review of IETF netann Draft (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Review of IETF netann Draft (Monday, 23 February)
• Review of IETF netann Draft (Thursday, 19 February)

Gisle Aas

• Re: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)

Graham Klyne

• RE: fragment prose proposal (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• Re: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• RE: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Re: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Monday, 23 February)
• Haskell URI handling; source code available (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: More test cases to be confirmed (Friday, 20 February)
• Calculating relative URIs (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: More test cases to be confirmed (Thursday, 19 February)
• Concern with URI normalization text; proposed change (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Review of IETF netann Draft (Thursday, 19 February)
• More test cases to be confirmed (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Thursday, 19 February)
• Relative URI resolution test cases? (Wednesday, 18 February)
• rfc2396bis, section 7.6, typo (Wednesday, 18 February)
• Just checking: pct-encoded in IPvFuture? (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt (Tuesday, 17 February)
• Re: localhost (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: localhost (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: RFC2396bis - implementation results using revised syntax (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Friday, 6 February)
• FYI. Was: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Wednesday, 4 February)
• RE: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Removing null authority (Monday, 2 February)
• RFC2396, parsing 'authority' and 'host' (Monday, 2 February)
• Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Monday, 2 February)
• Re: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Monday, 2 February)

Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)

• RE: fragment prose proposal (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Wednesday, 25 February)

Israel Viente

• RE: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)
• RE: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)

jcowan@reutershealth.com

• Re: Review of IETF netann Draft (Monday, 23 February)
• Re: #foo URI references (Tuesday, 3 February)
• Re: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Monday, 2 February)

Julian Reschke

• Re: Status of draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-01.txt (Tuesday, 3 February)

Kai Schaetzl

• userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Monday, 2 February)

Larry Masinter

• RE: fragment prose proposal (Sunday, 29 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Saturday, 28 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)

Martin Duerst

• RE: Review of IETF netann Draft (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Friday, 27 February)
• RE: Review of IETF netann Draft (Friday, 27 February)
• Re: Review of IETF netann Draft (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt (Friday, 20 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Thursday, 19 February)
• Re: Host header (was uri handling of hosts is too restrictive) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: localhost (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 3 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Sunday, 15 February)
• Re: ":" in pchar twice in latest draft (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: ":" in pchar twice in latest draft (Wednesday, 11 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Friday, 6 February)

Michel Suignard

• Http and RFC-2396 (Tuesday, 17 February)

Mike Brown

• RFC 2396bis draft 04 typo (Saturday, 21 February)
• defaults and equivalence, same-document references (Wednesday, 11 February)
• ":" in pchar twice in latest draft (Tuesday, 10 February)
• ALPHA / DIGIT vs alphanum (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: RFC2396bis - implementation results using revised syntax (Thursday, 5 February)

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com

• RE: fragment prose proposal (Thursday, 26 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: FW: fragment prose proposal (Saturday, 28 February)
• Re: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Monday, 23 February)
• draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-04.txt (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 3 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: "Relative URI" or "Relative URI Reference"? (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: Comments on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-0x (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: encoding related phrasing (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 6 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: localhost (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 7 (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: remove_dot_segment in draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: non-hierarchical URIs and square brackets (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: Editorial comments on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03 (Saturday, 14 February)
• Re: RFC2396, parsing 'authority' and 'host' (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: ":" in pchar twice in latest draft (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: defaults and equivalence, same-document references (Friday, 13 February)
• Re: feedback on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: ALPHA / DIGIT vs alphanum (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: Canonical Form of URIs "/" and IRIs (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: ":" in pchar twice in latest draft (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: URI Generic Syntax doc (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03) (Tuesday, 10 February)
• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Tuesday, 10 February)
• simplifying URI path production (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: 2396bis and the "/" char (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: feedback on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03.txt (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03, section 1 and 2 (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: encoding related phrasing (Sunday, 8 February)
• Re: definition of "character" (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: delimiters vs separators (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03 (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: URI Generic Syntax doc (draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03) (Saturday, 7 February)
• Re: userinfo allowed in http URI or not? (Monday, 2 February)

Sampo Syreeni

• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Friday, 6 February)

Shigeru Aoki

• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt (Friday, 6 February)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt (Friday, 6 February)

Stefan Eissing

• Host header (was uri handling of hosts is too restrictive) (Monday, 16 February)
• Re: SNMP URI and 2396bis (Monday, 9 February)
• Re: I-D ACTION:draft-black-snmp-uri-02.txt (Friday, 6 February)

Stephen Pollei

• Re: uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Friday, 6 February)
• uri handling of hosts is too restrictive (Thursday, 5 February)

Tim Bray

• Re: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Monday, 23 February)

Tony Hammond

• Re: FW: fragment prose proposal (Sunday, 29 February)
• FW: fragment prose proposal (Saturday, 28 February)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)
• RE: Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Tuesday, 24 February)
• Section 3.5. Passing fragment identifiers to other systems. (Monday, 23 February)

Last message date: Sunday, 29 February 2004 16:41:30 UTC