Tuesday, 1 February 2000
Monday, 31 January 2000
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: OBJECT (was Re: So, what's left?)
- Re: OBJECT (was Re: So, what's left?)
- Case Folding (was: XHTML/XML comment)
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: Error in strict DTD?
- Re: OBJECT (was Re: So, what's left?)
- Re: Error in strict DTD?
- Re: Error in strict DTD?
- Re: OBJECT (was Re: So, what's left?)
- Re: XHTML/XML comment (case sensitivity an I18N, redux)
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: XHTML/XML
- RE: XHTML/XML
- Re: XHTML/XML
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- RE: Process for site development
- XHTML/XML
- RE: XHTML/XML comment
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- Process for site development
- Re: a question on how to break the pvt message in chat rooms?
- a question on how to break the pvt message in chat rooms?
- Re: XHTML/XML comment
- XHTML/XML comment
- xml:space incorrectly declared in all 3 XHTML 1.0 DTDs
Sunday, 30 January 2000
Monday, 31 January 2000
Saturday, 29 January 2000
Monday, 31 January 2000
Friday, 28 January 2000
- RE: printing html
- RE: printing html
- RE: printing html
- xHTML 1.0 and non-well-formed XML
- printing html
- XHTML 1.0 is a Rec
Thursday, 27 January 2000
- Re: [OT] Online Dictionary (was:... process...)
- [OT] Online Dictionary (was:... process...)
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
Wednesday, 26 January 2000
- RE: frames: why they must be destroyed
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- RE: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- XHTML Family User Agent Conformance
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- [HOWTO META] This is hopeless, actually
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- XHTML Naming Rules - FPIs
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- Re: not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- not closed by process rules [was: So, what's left?]
- Re: So, what's left?
Tuesday, 25 January 2000
- Re: WEK: Comments on XHTML 1.1 5 Jan 2000 Draft (and related specs)
- Re: XHTMLINATLA
- Re: XHTMLINATLA
- Re: XHTMLINATLA
- Re: XHTMLINATLA
- oblique and vertical alignment in layers
- Re: XHTMLINATLA
- Re: So, what's left?
- XHTMLINATLA
- Re: Architectural Validation Only?
- WEK: Comments on XHTML 1.1 5 Jan 2000 Draft (and related specs)
- Re: So, what's left?
Monday, 24 January 2000
Tuesday, 25 January 2000
Monday, 24 January 2000
- Re: So, what's left?
- RE: So, what's left?
- RE: So, what's left?
- Architectural Validation Only?
- Re: Visited link, Extra feature wanted
- RE: frames: why they must be destroyed
- Re: So, what's left?
- So, what's left?
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- RV: Campaña NN UU (fwd)
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
- Visited link, Extra feature wanted
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
- Re: input type="image" takes no name or value?
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
Saturday, 22 January 2000
Friday, 21 January 2000
- input type="image" takes no name or value?
- Table Caption Align Attribute..
- Q
- RE: Using Entity References in XSL Templates
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: [www-html] <none>
- Re: unicode or multibyte characters in URLs in HTML
- [www-html] <none>
Thursday, 20 January 2000
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- encoding attribute in XML declaration
Wednesday, 19 January 2000
Thursday, 20 January 2000
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- RE: target="_new" - I won't miss it (was: ...Napoleanic Issues)
- Re: What am I doing wrong?
- XHTML and Architectures
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: URL changes in HTML4
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
Wednesday, 19 January 2000
- javascript
- RE: target="_new" - I won't miss it (was: ...Napoleanic Issues)
- Re: Physical markup concept snag
- Physical markup concept snag
- Re: lowercase tags required in the future?
- RE: lowercase tags required in the future?
- Re: target="_new" - I won't miss it (was: ...Napoleanic Issues)
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: target="_new" - I won't miss it (was: ...Napoleanic Issues)
Tuesday, 18 January 2000
- Re: What am I doing wrong?
- What am I doing wrong?
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- target="_new" - I won't miss it (was: ...Napoleanic Issues)
- frames: why they must be destroyed
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- ISO/IEC refs to HTML4
- frames continued
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- re: RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- RE: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- RE: User Authentication and Forms
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: frames targeting FEATURE REQUEST
- re: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: XHTML 1.1
- re: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Fw: User Authentication and Forms
Monday, 17 January 2000
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Re: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Undeprecated removals in XHTML 1.1
- Re: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- HTML Data Mining Tool
- RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- RE: Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Re: tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- tricky XHTML 1.0 namespace question
- Frames and People With Napoleanic Issues >>
- RE: frames targeting FEATURE REQUEST
- RE: Embed attribute for LINK element
- re: lowercase tags required in the future?
- RE: Embed attribute for LINK element
Saturday, 8 January 2000
Monday, 17 January 2000
Monday, 10 January 2000
Tuesday, 11 January 2000
Wednesday, 12 January 2000
Monday, 17 January 2000
- RE: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Embed attribute for LINK element
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
Saturday, 15 January 2000
Monday, 17 January 2000
- Embed attribute for LINK element
- XHTML Naming Rules
- www.w3c.org on CDROM
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
Sunday, 16 January 2000
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
Saturday, 15 January 2000
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
Friday, 14 January 2000
- Re: Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- RE: SSI and CGI
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Re: Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Why DOCTYPE Declarations for XHTML?
- Removal of the lang attribute (was Re: Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1)
Thursday, 13 January 2000
Wednesday, 12 January 2000
- RE: Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1
- Re: Request for change to XHTML Basic
- Request for change to XHTML Basic
- Re: Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1
- fill form
- Status of Iframe in XHTML 1.1
- Re: Error in HTML4.01 specification; section 6.12
- Error in HTML4.01 specification; section 6.12
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/TR /xhtml1)
Tuesday, 11 January 2000
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.or g/ TR /xhtml1)
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- Re: Status of Frames in HTML 4
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/ TR /xhtml1)
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/ TR /xhtml1)
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/ TR /xhtml1)
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/ TR /xhtml1)
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/TR /xhtml1)
- RE: Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/TR /xhtml1)
- Status of Frames in HTML 4 (was: errata, http://www.w3.org/TR/xht ml1)
Monday, 10 January 2000
- RE: errata, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1
- XHTML 1.1
- Re: forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
- RE: Preventing Refer field from being sent by browsers?
- RE: Fixed table width
Saturday, 8 January 2000
Friday, 7 January 2000
- Re: Printing the URL next to the link (was:RE: Fixed table width)
- Printing the URL next to the link (was:RE: Fixed table width)
- RE: Fixed table width
- Fixed table width
- errata, http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1
- Preventing Refer field from being sent by browsers?
Wednesday, 5 January 2000
Tuesday, 4 January 2000
- RE: forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
- Re: forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
- Re: forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
- RE: Reg Table
Wednesday, 5 January 2000
Tuesday, 4 January 2000
- Re: HTML 4.0 gone - horrendous
- Re: forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
- forms - checkbox labels and wrapping
Monday, 3 January 2000
- RE: Microsoft browsers
- Re: HTML 4.0 gone - horrendous
- Remove from mailing list
- W3C links causing unnecessary redirects
- Re: HTML 4.0 gone - horrendous
- XHTML 1.0 PR - Please chase your AC REP
- HTML 4.0 gone - horrendous