w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org from February 1997 by date

Thursday, 27 February 1997

• Current Markup Language Example Len Bullard
• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? Norbert H. MIKULA

Wednesday, 26 February 1997

• Call for participants: WWW6 workshop Jon Bosak
• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? Michael Sperberg-McQueen

Tuesday, 25 February 1997

• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition Gavin Nicol
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition Len Bullard
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition Steven J. DeRose
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition Gavin Nicol
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition Martin Bryan
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Martin Bryan
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition len bullard
• Re: Pardon my stupidity Jon Bosak
• testing Gregory Murphy
• Re: Pardon my stupidity Joe English
• ERB decisions on linking element recognition Tim Bray

Monday, 24 February 1997

• Pardon my stupidity Tim Bray
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Steve Pepper
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link Jon Bosak
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Len Bullard
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link Tim Bray
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Len Bullard
• Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? Norbert H. MIKULA
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link Sam Hunting
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Gavin Nicol
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Len Bullard
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? Len Bullard
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix Len Bullard
• Re: 3.a List link required? Len Bullard
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? Len Bullard
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Len Bullard
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Len Bullard
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.a List link required? Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Martin Bryan
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Martin Bryan
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Martin Bryan
• Suggested new XML slogan Tim Bray
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link Tim Bray
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link Jon Bosak
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Jon Bosak
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Jon Bosak
• xlink, not multilink or xml-link Sam Hunting
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Flynn
• Re: Normative refs to 8879/10744? len bullard
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation len bullard

Sunday, 23 February 1997

• Normative refs to 8879/10744? Tim Bray
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Dave Peterson
• Re: XML FAQ v0.4 lee@sq.com
• XML FAQ v0.4 Peter Flynn

Saturday, 22 February 1997

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? David Durand
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Peter Flynn
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Peter Flynn
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Digitome Ltd.
• WWW6 structured doc demo Jon Bosak
• New list: XML-DEV Jon Bosak
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink lee@sq.com
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? lee@sq.com
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? lee@sq.com
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? lee@sq.com
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Bill Smith

Friday, 21 February 1997

• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Len Bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? lee@sq.com
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Len Bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Dave Hollander
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Peter Flynn
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Christopher R. Maden
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML streich@austin.sar.slb.com
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Len Bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Sam Hunting
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Dave Hollander
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Len Bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Len Bullard
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Len Bullard
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Sam Hunting
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Len Bullard
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Dave Hollander
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Len Bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Len Bullard
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Steve Pepper
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML Bill Smith
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? David Durand
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? David Durand
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? David Durand
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation David Durand
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? David Durand
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Joe English
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Gavin Nicol
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Flynn
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Peter Flynn
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation len bullard
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Robert Streich
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Robert Streich
• Re: SDATA [was: Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation] Robert Streich
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Peter Flynn
• In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? Steve Pepper
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• 3.a List link required? Tim Bray
• 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? Tim Bray
• 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? Tim Bray
• 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? Tim Bray
• 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink Tim Bray
• 3.1.i exclude other information? Tim Bray
• 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix Tim Bray
• 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? Tim Bray
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Jon Bosak
• Re: DRAFT: Summary of ERB conference call Paul Grosso
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation len bullard
• Loss of information going from SGML to XML James Clark
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation David Durand
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? David Durand
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation len bullard

Thursday, 20 February 1997

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Digitome Ltd.
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Joe English
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Joe English
• DRAFT: Summary of ERB conference call Steven J. DeRose
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Flynn
• Re: implementation comments Len Bullard
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• SDATA [was: Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation] lee@sq.com
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation lee@sq.com
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: implementation comments Deborah A. Lapeyre
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Len Bullard
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: implementation comments James David Mason
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Flynn
• SERIOUS concerns about implementation Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: implementation comments Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? len bullard
• Java-based XML browser and implementation comments Tony Graham
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: implementation comments Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: Mailing list broken? Jon Bosak

Wednesday, 19 February 1997

• Mailing list broken? Tim Bray
• 6. Addressing & process model issues Tim Bray
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: Java-based XML browser and implementation comments Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Len Bullard
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: Java-based XML browser and implementation comments Len Bullard
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• Java-based XML browser and implementation comments Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Dave Peterson
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Prescod
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Grosso
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? David Durand
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? David Durand
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? David Durand
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? David Durand
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? David Durand
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? [Accessibility] Harvey Bingham
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Prescod
• Re: XML FAQ: some questions Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Prescod

Tuesday, 18 February 1997

• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Grosso
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Hasse Haitto
• Re: XML FAQ: some questions Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Joe English
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• XML FAQ: some questions Peter Flynn
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Henry S. Thompson
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Hasse Haitto
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak

Monday, 17 February 1997

• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues Peter Flynn
• Re: ERB terminology votes Peter Flynn
• re 6.2 Terry Allen
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• 6. Addressing & process model issues Tim Bray
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: XML catalog draft Terry Allen
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Dave Peterson
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Paul Grosso
• Re: XML catalog draft Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Ken Holman

Sunday, 16 February 1997

• Re: XML catalog draft Peter Flynn
• Re: XML catalog draft Peter Flynn
• Re: XML catalog draft Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Jon Bosak

Saturday, 15 February 1997

• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? lee@sq.com
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? lee@sq.com
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? lee@sq.com
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Peter Flynn
• Re: XML FAQ Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com

Friday, 14 February 1997

• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? David Durand
• Re: XML catalog draft David Durand

Saturday, 15 February 1997

• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Peter Flynn

Sunday, 16 February 1997

• ERB terminology votes Tim Bray

Friday, 14 February 1997

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Murray Altheim
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Murray Altheim
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Christopher R. Maden
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Martin Bryan
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Eve L. Maler
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Jon Bosak
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Jon Bosak

Thursday, 13 February 1997

• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Murray Altheim
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Bill Smith
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Martin Bryan
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Alex Milowski
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Tim Bray
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Murray Altheim
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Jon Bosak
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Jon Bosak
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Todd Freter
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Paul Grosso
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . Terry Allen
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Murray Altheim
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . len bullard
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Gavin Nicol
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . Terry Allen
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Marketing Contributions... Steve Pepper
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Keith M. Corbett
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Hasse Haitto
• If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Martin Bryan
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? Martin Bryan
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Martin Bryan
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? Martin Bryan
• Re: Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft Henry S. Thompson
• Re: XML catalog draft Hasse Haitto
• Re: Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft Martin Bryan
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Jon Bosak

Wednesday, 12 February 1997

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Tim Bray
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Murray Altheim
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? len bullard
• 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? Tim Bray
• 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? Tim Bray
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? len bullard
• 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? Tim Bray
• 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? Tim Bray
• ERB meeting of Feb. 12th Tim Bray
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Murray Altheim
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war len bullard
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Dave Peterson
• Re: XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] Dave Peterson
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war Murray Maloney
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Joe English
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Kurt Conrad
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak
• Re: XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] Alex Milowski
• Re: XML FAQ Peter Flynn
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Peter Flynn
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak

Tuesday, 11 February 1997

• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Dan Connolly
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? len bullard
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? len bullard
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! Peter Murray-Rust
• Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft Henry S. Thompson

Wednesday, 12 February 1997

• Re: XML catalog draft Steven J. DeRose
• Winning battles but losing the war Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Liora Alschuler
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Martin Bryan

Tuesday, 11 February 1997

• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Steven J. DeRose
• XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] Terry Allen
• Re: XML catalog draft Steven J. DeRose
• Re: XML catalog draft Murray Altheim
• What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? Tim Bray
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Alex Milowski
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: XML catalog draft Murray Altheim
• Re: Ontology and Epistimology for Links in XHL Martin Bryan
• Re: XML catalog draft David Durand
• Re: XML catalog draft Murray Altheim
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Gavin Nicol
• Re: XML catalog draft David Durand
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments David Durand
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? David Durand
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments David Durand
• Re: XML catalog draft Tim Bray
• The new perspective I'm pushing, continued Henry S. Thompson
• re: get rid of leading hyphen Lou Burnard
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! Peter Flynn
• Ontology and Epistimology for Links in XHL Henry S. Thompson
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Murray Altheim
• XML FAQ Peter Flynn
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Lou Burnard
• Re: XML marketing contributions Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Peter Flynn
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Gavin Nicol
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Martin Bryan
• RE: Marketing Contributions... Kurt Conrad
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Henry S. Thompson
• Marketing Contributions... Digitome Ltd.
• Re: XML catalog draft Martin Bryan
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Dave Peterson
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments len bullard
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Terry Allen
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Dave Peterson
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? David Durand
• Re: XML FAQ Jon Bosak
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? David Durand
• Re: XML catalog draft Tim Bray
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments len bullard
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Jon Bosak
• XML FAQ Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Jon Bosak

Monday, 10 February 1997

• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Murray Altheim
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! Len Bullard
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Terry Allen
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Steven J. DeRose
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! Murray Altheim
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments Bill Smith
• Re: XML catalog draft Alex Milowski
• Re: XML marketing contributions Bill Smith
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? Steven J. DeRose
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Steven J. DeRose
• There Are No Metadocuments Terry Allen
• Re: XML catalog draft Gavin Nicol
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML marketing contributions Todd Freter
• Re: XML catalog draft Alex Milowski
• Re: 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal Len Bullard
• Re: XML marketing contributions Liora Alschuler
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Murray Altheim
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Murray Altheim
• 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal Henry S. Thompson
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Henry S. Thompson
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Len Bullard
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Len Bullard
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Len Bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Gavin Nicol
• Re: XML catalog draft Gavin Nicol
• Re: XML catalog draft Gavin Nicol
• Re: XML catalog draft Gavin Nicol
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Liora Alschuler
• Re: XML marketing contributions Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Martin Bryan
• Re: XML catalog draft Martin Bryan
• Re: XML marketing contributions Kurt Conrad
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft Terry Allen
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends David Durand
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Jon Bosak

Sunday, 9 February 1997

• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Tim Bray
• Re: "Natural XML" John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re "Natural XML" Terry Allen
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends David Durand
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? David Durand
• Re: XML catalog draft (Please let's not argue resolution independence again!) David Durand
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? David Durand
• The Unoptimized SGML-Bundle Relations Schema for MIME Terry Allen
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: Alex's JAR documents [was: XML catalog draft] lee@sq.com

Monday, 10 February 1997

• Re: XML catalog draft W. Eliot Kimber

Sunday, 9 February 1997

• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: Section 0: Naming lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! lee@sq.com
• XML marketing contributions Jon Bosak
• Re: XML catalog draft Alex Milowski
• Get rid of the leading hyphen! Jon Bosak
• Re: Section 0: Naming Jon Bosak
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Jon Bosak
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) len bullard
• Re: Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) Paul Prescod
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML catalog draft Martin Bryan
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) len bullard
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? len bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Jon Bosak

Saturday, 8 February 1997

• Is XML-Link Rocket Science? Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML catalog draft Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends len bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends len bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Jon Bosak
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: XML catalog draft len bullard

Friday, 7 February 1997

• Re: XML catalog draft Murray Altheim
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Liora Alschuler
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Prescod
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Len Bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? Len Bullard
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? James David Mason
• Re: XML catalog draft Terry Allen
• 1.4 h: Explainer? Liora Alschuler
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology Liora Alschuler
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Len Bullard
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Liora Alschuler
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality Liora Alschuler
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Liora Alschuler
• Re: elm alternate linking proposal Eve L. Maler
• Re: XML catalog draft Martin Bryan
• Re: XML catalog draft James Clark
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends James Clark
• Re: Section 0: Naming Liora Alschuler
• Re: elm alternate linking proposal Tim Bray

Thursday, 6 February 1997

• List of markup declaration constraints in XML (fwd) Peter Flynn

Wednesday, 5 February 1997

• elm alternate linking proposal Eve L. Maler
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Martin Bryan
• Re: Section 0: Naming -- not limited to XML? lee@sq.com

Tuesday, 4 February 1997

• Re: Section 0: Naming Jon Bosak

Wednesday, 5 February 1997

• Re: Section 0: Naming len bullard

Tuesday, 4 February 1997

• Re: Section 0: Naming Peter Flynn
• Re: Section 0: Naming Eve L. Maler
• Re: Section 0: Naming John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu
• Re: Section 0: Naming Murray Altheim
• Re: Section 0: Naming David Durand
• Re: Section 0: Naming Todd Freter
• Re: Section 0: Naming Len Bullard
• Re: Section 0: Naming Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Jon Bosak
• Re: Section 0: Naming Len Bullard
• Re: Section 0: Naming Eve L. Maler
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Len Bullard
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology lee@sq.com
• Re: Section 0: Naming Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? David G. Durand
• Re: Section 0: Naming David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology David G. Durand
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Len Bullard
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Jon Bosak
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? Jon Bosak
• Re: Section 0: Naming Murray Altheim
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Gregory Murphy
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Peter Flynn
• Revised text for Section 5 of XHL Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology Harvey Bingham
• Re: Section 0: Naming Jon Bosak

Monday, 3 February 1997

• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) len bullard
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology Tim Bray
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Tim Bray
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? Tim Bray
• Re: 1.1.a Formatting Issues Out of Scope? Tim Bray
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Tim Bray
• Re: Section 0: Naming Tim Bray
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? Tim Bray
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! Eve L. Maler
• Re: Sample Question Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Murray Altheim
• [Fwd: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?] Len Bullard
• NXP Update (V 0.9) released Norbert H. MIKULA
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: 1.a: (David's Archform declaration gloss) David G. Durand
• Re: Production 21 (and others) Peter Flynn
• Initial draft of XML-Link spec now availab Len Bullard
• Syntax of PIs Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML catalog draft Paul Grosso
• Re: Sample Question Len Bullard
• Re: XML catalog draft Christopher R. Maden
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! Michael Sperberg-McQueen
• Re: Sample Question Peter Flynn
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! Eve Maler
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! Eve L. Maler

Sunday, 2 February 1997

• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology lee@sq.com
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Eve L. Maler
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology David G. Durand
• Re: Subject headings -- and multiple CCs David G. Durand
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) David G. Durand
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.1.a Formatting Issues Out of Scope? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends David G. Durand
• Re: 1.b: Excluded relationships David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology David G. Durand
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology -- Another possible ambiguity. David G. Durand
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! David G. Durand
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? David G. Durand
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed [SHORTTAG] lee@sq.com

Saturday, 1 February 1997

• Re: text/xml volunteers needed Dave Peterson
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed lee@sq.com
• Discussions foreground and background Jon Bosak
• XML and DSSSL at WWW6 Jon Bosak
• Current SGML ERB/WG roster Jon Bosak
• New members; archives updated Jon Bosak
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: XML catalog draft Peter Murray-Rust
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) Martin Bryan
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? Martin Bryan
• Re: Production 21 (and others) Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? Digitome Ltd.
• Re: XML catalog draft lee@sq.com
• Re: Production 21 (and others) lee@sq.com

Last message date: Thursday, 27 February 1997 14:56:33 UTC