www-html@w3.org from February 2000 by author

Adrian Walters

• question about forms (Thursday, 17 February)

Alan G. Isaac

• Re: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: STRONG; I, B, (TT) (Tuesday, 22 February)

Albert Lunde

• Re: inline CSS - Argument for (Thursday, 24 February)

Alessandro Forghieri

• In support of non proprietary device upload standards. (Monday, 28 February)

Andy Waite

• Re: text input form resize (Monday, 28 February)
• Re: suggestions... (Saturday, 26 February)

Arjun Ray

• Re: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: pre-XHTML discussions: sprinkles/islands [was: ...] (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Thursday, 24 February)
• RE: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: inline CSS - score so far (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Sunday, 20 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Sunday, 20 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Sunday, 20 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: HTML vs socio-political correctness (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (W3C's motives) (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: FPI case sensitivity in draft-connolly-text-html-02 (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: alt element (was: naming custom/extended tags) (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• RE: naming custom/extended tags (Sunday, 13 February)
• Advice and Advocacy (was: naming custom/extended tags) (Saturday, 12 February)
• RE: naming custom/extended tags (Saturday, 12 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Friday, 11 February)
• Re: "validate against"??? (Friday, 11 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Thursday, 10 February)
• Notations in (x)HTML (Sunday, 6 February)
• Re: Notations are useful (Sunday, 6 February)
• Notations are useful (Friday, 4 February)
• Re: XHTML/XML comment (case sensitivity an I18N, redux) (Tuesday, 1 February)
• HTML, XML and "Idioms" (Tuesday, 1 February)

Benjamin Randall

• Re: Netscape and IE images (Thursday, 3 February)

Bertilo Wennergren

• Re: Deprecated or not? (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: Deprecated or not? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Deprecated or not? (Monday, 21 February)

Bjoern Hoehrmann

• Re: NAME attribute for IMG (Monday, 14 February)

Bluett, Mike

• Device Upload Proposal (Monday, 28 February)

Braden N. McDaniel

• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)

Brendan Devers

• Scrolling tables without frames (Tuesday, 15 February)

bruno.boutteau

• Endorse the device upload protocol please (Saturday, 26 February)

by way of Alan Kotok

• suggestions... (Friday, 25 February)

Cesare Cioni

• Web Form Speech Input for Non-Wintel Systems (Tuesday, 29 February)

Chris Wilson

• RE: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Tuesday, 22 February)

Christopher Luebcke

• RE: XHTML/XML comment (Tuesday, 1 February)

Clover Andrew

• Re: file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)

Dan Connolly

• pre-XHTML discussions: sprinkles/islands [was: ...] (Wednesday, 23 February)
• W3C Chat before XTech 2000: XHTML - a bridge to the Web of the future (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Discussion (www-html) vs. requests (www-html-editor) (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: HTTP headers (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (W3C's motives) (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: naming custom/extended tags (Saturday, 12 February)
• Re: "validate against"??? (Friday, 11 February)
• identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 10 February)
• "validate against"??? (Thursday, 10 February)

Dan Oscarsson

• Re: XHTML/XML comment (case sensitivity an I18N, redux) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Daniel Hiester

• Re: inline CSS - Argument for (Saturday, 26 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: HTML vs socio-political correctness (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Saturday, 19 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: Ok, here's my suggestion... (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: Netscape and IE images (Friday, 4 February)
• Re: Table height (Wednesday, 2 February)

Dave J Woolley

• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• RE: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Friday, 18 February)
• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• RE: Ok, here's my suggestion... (Thursday, 17 February)
• RE: Scrolling tables without frames (Tuesday, 15 February)
• RE: alt element (was: naming custom/extended tags) (Monday, 14 February)
• RE: input type="image" with no borders (Thursday, 10 February)
• RE: input type="image" with no borders (Thursday, 10 February)
• RE: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Wednesday, 9 February)
• RE: javascript scheme in href URLs (Tuesday, 8 February)
• RE: Netscape and IE images (Friday, 4 February)
• RE: Netscape and IE images (Friday, 4 February)
• RE: RSAC stupidity? (Wednesday, 2 February)
• RE: Table height (Wednesday, 2 February)
• RE: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development) (Wednesday, 2 February)

Dave Raggett

• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Tuesday, 29 February)

David Carlisle

• Re: inline CSS - Argument for (Monday, 28 February)
• Re: inline CSS - Argument for (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• [www-html] <none> (Thursday, 17 February)

David Wagner

• RE: Separating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• RE: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• RE: alt element (was: naming custom/extended tags) (Monday, 14 February)
• RE: Lists in tables (Friday, 11 February)
• RE: web page (Friday, 4 February)

Dmitry Beransky

• Re: NAME attribute for IMG (Monday, 14 February)

Dorothée Caulier

• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)

fantasai

• Re: inline CSS - Argument for (Thursday, 24 February)

Francis X. Speiser Jr.

• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)

Frank Boumphrey

• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: web page (Friday, 4 February)

George Hobbs

• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Monday, 28 February)
• Device upload for all platforms (Sunday, 27 February)

Gerald Oskoboiny

• Resent-From headers (was Re: Device upload for all platforms) (Tuesday, 29 February)
• FPI case sensitivity in draft-connolly-text-html-02 (Monday, 14 February)

Grant, John

• RE: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• RE: Scrolling tables without frames (Tuesday, 15 February)
• input tag height (Tuesday, 8 February)

Hugo Koji Kobayashi

• RE: input type="image" with no borders (Thursday, 10 February)
• input type="image" with no borders (Thursday, 10 February)

Håkon Wium Lie

• "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)

Jacob Lindborg

• CSS3 (Friday, 18 February)
• SV: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• SV: Ok, here's my suggestion... (Thursday, 17 February)

Jacob Palme

• Re: Device upload for all platforms (Monday, 28 February)
• Device upload for all platforms (Sunday, 27 February)

James P. Salsman

• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Sun's position on device upload (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Monday, 28 February)

Jan Roland Eriksson

• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Wednesday, 16 February)

Jeffrey

• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: passing values through <a href> links (Sunday, 20 February)

Jelks Cabaniss

• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Friday, 18 February)
• Unoticed Error in XHTML 1.0? (Thursday, 17 February)
• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)

Jim Culberson

• Mac user input (Monday, 28 February)

jmfrenard@free.fr

• html speech input (Tuesday, 29 February)

John Bergsing

• Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)

John Pierce

• HTML vs socio-political correctness (Saturday, 19 February)

John W Pierce

• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)

John Whelan

• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)

Jonathan Rosenne

• RE: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)

Jonny Axelsson

• Builder.com discussion on the style attribute (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: STRONG; I, B, (TT) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)
• XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: CODE, VAR, KBD and SAMP (Tuesday, 22 February)
• XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: Introduction (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization, prologue (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Sunday, 13 February)
• Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Wednesday, 9 February)
• (A) exclusion (Thursday, 3 February)

JOrendorff@ixl.com

• RE: Device upload for all platforms (Monday, 28 February)
• RE: suggestions... (Friday, 25 February)
• inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: CODE, VAR, KBD and SAMP (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• alt element (was: naming custom/extended tags) (Monday, 14 February)
• RE: naming custom/extended tags (Saturday, 12 February)
• RE: naming custom/extended tags (Friday, 11 February)
• RE: javascript scheme in href URLs (Tuesday, 8 February)

Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi

• Re: file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Re: file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)

Karl Dubost

• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• French version de ATAG 1.0 (Sunday, 13 February)
• Comm 4.7 and XHTML (was Re: RSAC stupidity) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Ken MacLeod

• Chat Topic: LDO - an XML transport library (Saturday, 19 February)

L. David Baron

• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)

Lucas Vogel

• Petition: Web Form Speech Input for Non-Wintel Systems (Monday, 28 February)

M.H.M Hibatullah

• web page (Friday, 4 February)

Maria Aretoulaki

• Petition: Web Form Speech Input for Non-Wintel Systems (Monday, 28 February)

Masayasu Ishikawa

• Re: W3C Chat before XTech 2000: XHTML - a bridge to the Web of the future (Saturday, 26 February)

Matthew Brealey

• Re: Bidi - HTML vs. CSS (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Bidi - HTML vs. CSS (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re:XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)

Matthew Slocombe

• Re: Ok, here's my suggestion... (Thursday, 17 February)

mauricio portasio

• off-topic regarding off-topics (Wednesday, 16 February)

Maury Markowitz

• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• Ok, here's my suggestion... (Thursday, 17 February)
• Suggestions for HTML go where? (Wednesday, 16 February)

Michael Blow

• naming custom/extended tags (Friday, 11 February)

Michael Hamm

• Re: HTTP headers (Thursday, 17 February)
• HTTP headers (Thursday, 17 February)

Miguel Marcos

• Web Form Speech Input for all platforms (Wednesday, 1 March)

Morriz

• Petition: Web Form Speech Input for Non-Wintel Systems (Tuesday, 29 February)

Murray Altheim

• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Monday, 28 February)
• Re: Device upload for all platforms (Monday, 28 February)
• Re: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: Deprecated or not? (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: Deprecated or not? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: Deprecated or not? (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: HTML vs socio-political correctness (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Saturday, 12 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Saturday, 12 February)
• Re: Notations are useful (Saturday, 5 February)
• Re: Comm 4.7 and XHTML (was Re: RSAC stupidity) (Tuesday, 1 February)
• Re: XHTML/XML comment (Tuesday, 1 February)
• Re: XHTML/XML comment (Tuesday, 1 February)
• Re: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Nabil Layaida

• Some important questions about document profiles and their use (Monday, 7 February)

Ned Abell

• Non-proprietary web tags (Tuesday, 29 February)

Nick Traenkner

• question/suggestion on input element (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: Scrolling tables without frames (Tuesday, 15 February)

Nir Dagan

• Re: suggestions... (Friday, 25 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: Bidi - HTML vs. CSS (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re:XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: XHTML Basic and XHTML modularization: ACRONYM and BDO (Tuesday, 22 February)
• Re: Suggestions for HTML go where? (Wednesday, 16 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Tuesday, 15 February)
• Re: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Wednesday, 9 February)

Patrice Calve

• RE: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CS S - score so far) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)

pdf@bizfon.com

• NAME attribute for IMG (Monday, 14 February)
• Lists in tables (Friday, 11 February)

Peter Rippe

• Re: input tag height (Tuesday, 8 February)

Piers Williams

• RE: inline CSS - score so far (Wednesday, 23 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)

Prince Nokman

• [www-html] <none> (Monday, 21 February)

ravikiran@iiit.net

• A MUSIC SITE ..... (Sunday, 13 February)

rev-bob@gotc.com

• RE: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)
• RE: Netscape and IE images (Thursday, 3 February)
• RSAC stupidity? (Wednesday, 2 February)
• RE: RSAC stupidity (Wednesday, 2 February)
• RE: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Roy.Gardiner@natwest.com

• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)

Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor

• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Monday, 28 February)
• SP's spam Was: (Seperating ...) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: URL better than FPI (Saturday, 19 February)
• URL better than FPI (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Thursday, 17 February)
• RE: Name namespace, namespaces and names in general (Monday, 14 February)

Sal Candido

• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: passing values through <a href> links (Monday, 21 February)

Sam Rose

• passing values through <a href> links (Monday, 14 February)

Scott Violet

• White Space (Tuesday, 29 February)

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer

• Re: Device upload for all platforms (Sunday, 27 February)

Simon St.Laurent

• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)
• javascript scheme in href URLs (Tuesday, 8 February)
• unused parameter entity (Thursday, 3 February)
• missing references (Wednesday, 2 February)

Stephane Bailliez

• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• RE: [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)
• [Q] META "Refresh" deprecated ? (Tuesday, 22 February)

Steven Pemberton

• Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Re: file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)
• The role of the style attribute: HTML WG official position (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position (Monday, 28 February)

Sue Sims

• Posting without subscribing (Wednesday, 1 March)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)

Susan Lesch

• Re: W3C Chat before XTech 2000: XHTML - a bridge to the Web of the future (Saturday, 26 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Wednesday, 23 February)

Suzanne Topping

• Re: web page (Friday, 4 February)

Suzie Blount

• please endorse upload for all platforms. not just wintel (Monday, 28 February)

Syahruddin Podding

• Open File not in HTML format (Monday, 14 February)

Tantek Çelik

• Re: Phoney Baloney (was "fighting...") (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: inline CSS (was: is anyone interested in XHTML?) (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: is anyone interested in XHTML? (Thursday, 17 February)

Terje Bless

• Re: suggestions... (Saturday, 26 February)
• Re: identify XHTML DTD by URI, not by FPI (Wednesday, 16 February)

Tim Berners-Lee

• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Friday, 18 February)
• Re: review process [was: identify...] (Thursday, 17 February)

Tim Greenhoot

• Re: HTML vs socio-political correctness (Saturday, 19 February)

Walter Ian Kaye

• Re: file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)
• file upload extension (Tuesday, 29 February)
• Re: Device upload for all platforms (Monday, 28 February)
• Re: suggestions... (Saturday, 26 February)
• Re: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• Re: Seperating Document Content from Structure (was RE: inline CSS - score so far) (Thursday, 24 February)
• RE: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: "fighting it out between WGs" (was: inline CSS) (Wednesday, 23 February)
• Re: passing values through <a href> links (Monday, 21 February)
• Re: Off topic; Re: Dropdown Menu Trouble (Wednesday, 16 February)
• RE: RSAC stupidity (Wednesday, 2 February)
• Re: RSAC stupidity (Tuesday, 1 February)
• RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Waseem Anis

• New here... (Monday, 14 February)

wgzhu@quoininc.com

• Re: RSAC stupidity (was RE: Process for site development) (Tuesday, 1 February)

Will Wilson

• Re: Netscape and IE images (Friday, 4 February)

Yude.Hu

• Re: text input form resize (Monday, 28 February)

Last message date: Tuesday, 29 February 2000 22:26:52 UTC