www-tag@w3.org from October 2002 by author

a@w3.org

• dvd真的不錯 (Saturday, 12 October)

Aaron Swartz

• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Friday, 1 November)
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Friday, 1 November)
• Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Thursday, 31 October)

Ann Navarro

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Links are links (Tuesday, 1 October)

Ben Hammersley

• Re: http URIs as names and scalability (Sunday, 13 October)

Bill de hÓra

• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Biron,Paul V

• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)

Bullard, Claude L (Len)

• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)

Champion, Mike

• RE: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: The case against URNs (Sunday, 6 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Sunday, 6 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)

Chris Lilley

• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Monday, 28 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Monday, 28 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Monday, 7 October)

Dan Connolly

• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Thursday, 31 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Thursday, 24 October)
• how URIs take on meaning (2.6) (Thursday, 24 October)
• recent IETF naming specs [was: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf] (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: [Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (Wednesday, 2 October)

Dare Obasanjo

• RE: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 12 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)

David Booth

• deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? (Friday, 11 October)

David Orchard

• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Saturday, 5 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Saturday, 5 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

DPawson@rnib.org.uk

• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Elliotte Rusty Harold

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 10 October)

Eric van der Vlist

• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema (Friday, 25 October)
• Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema (Wednesday, 23 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)

Graham Klyne

• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)

Ian B. Jacobs

• [Agenda] 4 Nov 2002 TAG teleconference (meetings, arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, URIEquivalence-15) (Thursday, 31 October)
• [Publication] 29 Oct 2002 Arch Doc (Wednesday, 30 October)
• [Issue IRIEverywhere-27] Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? (Tuesday, 29 October)
• [Minutes] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, xlinkScope-23) (Tuesday, 29 October)
• [Agenda] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconference (Thursday, 24 October)
• [Minutes] 21 October 2002 TAG teleconference (Monday, 21 October)
• [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (Thursday, 17 October)
• [Minutes] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (xlinkScope-23, arch doc, rfc3023Charset-21) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Summary of TAG activity from 4 Sep 2002 to 4 Oct 2002 (Monday, 7 October)
• [Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (Wednesday, 2 October)
• [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting (Wednesday, 2 October)

Jeni Tennison

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Jonathan Borden

• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Friday, 25 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Wednesday, 9 October)
• what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• XLink and IE, actually ... was: Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Jonathan Marsh

• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 10 October)
• IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 9 October)

Joshua Allen

• RE: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence (Saturday, 19 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)

Julian Reschke

• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)
• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)

Larry Masinter

• more on URI equivalence (Sunday, 20 October)
• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (Friday, 18 October)
• http URIs as names and scalability (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence (Saturday, 12 October)
• "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Monday, 7 October)

Mark Baker

• Re: http URIs as names and scalability (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Generalization and opacity (was "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Sunday, 6 October)
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: XLink: the architectural issue (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: XLink: the architectural issue (Wednesday, 2 October)

Martin Duerst

• Re: more on URI equivalence (Thursday, 24 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 24 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Saturday, 12 October)

Masayasu Ishikawa

• Re: Minutes (Tuesday, 1 October)

Micah Dubinko

• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 4 October)
• now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 4 October)

Michael Day

• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)

Miles Sabin

• Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)] (Friday, 1 November)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Wednesday, 9 October)

Misha.Wolf@reuters.com

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Sunday, 13 October)
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Saturday, 5 October)

Norman Gray

• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)

Norman Walsh

• Re: examples as opportunity (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: XLink: the architectural issue (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

pat hayes

• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Friday, 1 November)
• Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)] (Friday, 1 November)

Paul Cotton

• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema (Thursday, 24 October)

Paul Grosso

• Urgency of IRIEverywhere-27 (Wednesday, 30 October)

Paul Prescod

• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car (Saturday, 26 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Towards Colloquial XML (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• Correction Re: The case against URNs (Sunday, 6 October)
• The case against URNs (Sunday, 6 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Richard Tobin

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 23 October)

Rick Jelliffe

• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 24 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Friday, 18 October)

Robin Berjon

• Re: Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 9 October)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting (Wednesday, 2 October)

Simon St.Laurent

• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Friday, 1 November)
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) (Friday, 1 November)
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Thursday, 31 October)
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Use of fragment identifiers in XML (Tuesday, 29 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 19 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) (Monday, 7 October)
• examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)

Tim Berners-Lee

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Monday, 7 October)

Tim Bray

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) (Thursday, 31 October)
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Monday, 14 October)
• Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. (Saturday, 12 October)
• Sticking another fork in the URI issue (Friday, 11 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• XHTML needs multi-ended links (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Saturday, 5 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) (Friday, 4 October)
• Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links (Wednesday, 2 October)

Williams, Stuart

• Summary of discussion TAG and www-tag on xlinkScope-23, XLink/HLi nk (Thursday, 31 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: Minutes (Tuesday, 1 October)

yskim@paragonic.com

• RE: Binary Infosets (Tuesday, 15 October)

Last message date: Thursday, 31 October 2002 23:20:21 UTC