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

Alex Milowski

• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)

Bill Smith

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Monday, 10 February)

Christopher R. Maden

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 3 February)

Dan Connolly

• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)

Dave Hollander

• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)

Dave Peterson

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Monday, 17 February)
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed (Saturday, 1 February)

David Durand

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Please let's not argue resolution independence again!) (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)

David G. Durand

• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.a: (David's Archform declaration gloss) (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: Subject headings -- and multiple CCs (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.1.a Formatting Issues Out of Scope? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.b: Excluded relationships (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology -- Another possible ambiguity. (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Sunday, 2 February)

Deborah A. Lapeyre

• Re: implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)

Digitome Ltd.

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Marketing Contributions... (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Production 21 (and others) (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? (Saturday, 1 February)

Eve L. Maler

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: elm alternate linking proposal (Friday, 7 February)
• elm alternate linking proposal (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Sunday, 2 February)

Eve Maler

• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)

Gavin Nicol

• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)

Gregory Murphy

• testing (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)

Harvey Bingham

• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? [Accessibility] (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)

Hasse Haitto

• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 18 February)
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Thursday, 13 February)

Henry S. Thompson

• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft (Thursday, 13 February)
• Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Winning battles but losing the war (Wednesday, 12 February)
• The new perspective I'm pushing, continued (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Ontology and Epistimology for Links in XHL (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)

James Clark

• Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)

James David Mason

• Re: implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)

Joe English

• Re: Pardon my stupidity (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 12 February)

John_Lavagnino@Brown.edu

• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: "Natural XML" (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)

Jon Bosak

• Call for participants: WWW6 workshop (Wednesday, 26 February)
• Re: Pardon my stupidity (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Monday, 24 February)
• WWW6 structured doc demo (Saturday, 22 February)
• New list: XML-DEV (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Mailing list broken? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML FAQ (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• XML marketing contributions (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Sunday, 9 February)
• Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Discussions foreground and background (Saturday, 1 February)
• XML and DSSSL at WWW6 (Saturday, 1 February)
• Current SGML ERB/WG roster (Saturday, 1 February)
• New members; archives updated (Saturday, 1 February)

Keith M. Corbett

• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)

Ken Holman

• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Monday, 17 February)

Kurt Conrad

• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• RE: Marketing Contributions... (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Monday, 10 February)

lee@sq.com

• Re: XML FAQ v0.4 (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• SDATA [was: Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation] (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• RE: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Alex's JAR documents [was: XML catalog draft] (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming -- not limited to XML? (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed [SHORTTAG] (Sunday, 2 February)
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: Production 21 (and others) (Saturday, 1 February)

Len Bullard

• Current Markup Language Example (Thursday, 27 February)
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.a List link required? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: Normative refs to 8879/10744? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Java-based XML browser and implementation comments (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.2 link and 1.6 traversal (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Monday, 3 February)
• [Fwd: Re: Use of ";" in relative URLs: procedural issue?] (Monday, 3 February)
• Initial draft of XML-Link spec now availab (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: Sample Question (Monday, 3 February)

Liora Alschuler

• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology (Friday, 7 February)
• 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Friday, 7 February)

Lou Burnard

• re: get rid of leading hyphen (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)

Martin Bryan

• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.a List link required? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1.i exclude other information? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Improved, slightly modified version of my proposed redraft (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Ontology and Epistimology for Links in XHL (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Wednesday, 5 February)
• Revised text for Section 5 of XHL (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (Saturday, 1 February)

Michael Sperberg-McQueen

• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? (Wednesday, 26 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: XML FAQ: some questions (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? -- critical ambiguity in question! (Monday, 3 February)

Murray Altheim

• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 14 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Monday, 3 February)

Murray Maloney

• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Wednesday, 12 February)

Norbert H. MIKULA

• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? (Thursday, 27 February)
• Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? (Monday, 24 February)
• NXP Update (V 0.9) released (Monday, 3 February)

Paul Grosso

• Re: DRAFT: Summary of ERB conference call (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 3 February)

Paul Prescod

• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: Reference Implementation (Was: Re: XML catalog draft) (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)

Peter Flynn

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Monday, 24 February)
• XML FAQ v0.4 (Sunday, 23 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: Java-based XML browser and implementation comments (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: XML FAQ: some questions (Wednesday, 19 February)
• XML FAQ: some questions (Tuesday, 18 February)
• Re: 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: ERB terminology votes (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: XML FAQ (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Tuesday, 11 February)
• XML FAQ (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• XML FAQ (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Monday, 10 February)
• List of markup declaration constraints in XML (fwd) (Thursday, 6 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.4 c: Basic Terminology (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: Sample Question (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: Production 21 (and others) (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: Sample Question (Monday, 3 February)

Peter Murray-Rust

• Re: Parameter entities allowed anywhere ? (Thursday, 27 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Saturday, 22 February)
• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)
• Java-based XML browser and implementation comments (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: XML FAQ (Saturday, 15 February)
• Re: Get rid of the leading hyphen! (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 8 February)
• Is XML-Link Rocket Science? (Saturday, 8 February)
• Syntax of PIs (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: text/xml volunteers needed (Saturday, 1 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Saturday, 1 February)

Robert Streich

• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SDATA [was: Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation] (Friday, 21 February)

Sam Hunting

• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Friday, 21 February)

Steve Pepper

• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Friday, 21 February)
• In lieu of multiple attlists: LINK? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: Marketing Contributions... (Thursday, 13 February)

Steven J. DeRose

• Re: ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Re: SERIOUS concerns about implementation (Friday, 21 February)
• DRAFT: Summary of ERB conference call (Thursday, 20 February)
• Re: What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Wednesday, 12 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.4 h: Explainer? (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? (Monday, 10 February)

streich@austin.sar.slb.com

• Re: Loss of information going from SGML to XML (Friday, 21 February)

Terry Allen

• re 6.2 (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 17 February)
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: If no new syntax, and no API, then what are we doing here . . . (Thursday, 13 February)
• XML process modelling [was No Metadocuments] (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: There Are No Metadocuments (Monday, 10 February)
• There Are No Metadocuments (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)
• Re "Natural XML" (Sunday, 9 February)
• The Unoptimized SGML-Bundle Relations Schema for MIME (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Friday, 7 February)

Tim Bray

• ERB decisions on linking element recognition (Tuesday, 25 February)
• Pardon my stupidity (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• Suggested new XML slogan (Monday, 24 February)
• Re: xlink, not multilink or xml-link (Monday, 24 February)
• Normative refs to 8879/10744? (Sunday, 23 February)
• 3.a List link required? (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.3 XML Analogue of HTML "<A"? (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.2 c-d Content of linking elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.2.b Locators in attributes or elements? (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.2.a Name for generalized multilink (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.1.i exclude other information? (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.1 b-h: Link contents question matrix (Friday, 21 February)
• 3.1.a All linkage info in markup not data? (Friday, 21 February)
• Mailing list broken? (Wednesday, 19 February)
• 6. Addressing & process model issues (Wednesday, 19 February)
• 6. Addressing & process model issues (Monday, 17 February)
• ERB terminology votes (Sunday, 16 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• 2.4: Link recognition by processor fiat? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• 2.3: Link Recognition by PI or other signal? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• 2.2 a-b: Link Recognition by Reserved GI? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• 2.1 a-d: Link Recognition by Reserved Attribute? (Wednesday, 12 February)
• ERB meeting of Feb. 12th (Wednesday, 12 February)
• What to do given both SYSTEM and PUBLIC? (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: XML catalog draft (Tuesday, 11 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Sunday, 9 February)
• Re: elm alternate linking proposal (Friday, 7 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)
• Re: 1.5: Discuss link characteristics? (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4.g: define/discuss Traversal? (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4 f: terms for links colocated with their ends (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4 e: ordinality of directionality (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4 d: Address terminology (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.4 a-c: Basic Terminology (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.3, Notation: SGML? Reference Concrete? (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.1.a Formatting Issues Out of Scope? (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost) (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Monday, 3 February)
• Re: 1.a: Use Elements? (Monday, 3 February)

Todd Freter

• Re: Winning battles but losing the war (Thursday, 13 February)
• Re: XML marketing contributions (Monday, 10 February)
• Re: Section 0: Naming (Tuesday, 4 February)

Tony Graham

• Java-based XML browser and implementation comments (Thursday, 20 February)

W. Eliot Kimber

• Re: XML catalog draft (Monday, 10 February)

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