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

Friday, 1 November 2002

• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) pat hayes
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Simon St.Laurent
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Aaron Swartz
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Aaron Swartz
• Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)] Miles Sabin
• Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)] pat hayes
• Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Simon St.Laurent

Thursday, 31 October 2002

• Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Aaron Swartz
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Dan Connolly
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Tim Bray
• [Agenda] 4 Nov 2002 TAG teleconference (meetings, arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, URIEquivalence-15) Ian B. Jacobs
• Summary of discussion TAG and www-tag on xlinkScope-23, XLink/HLi nk Williams, Stuart

Wednesday, 30 October 2002

• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Chris Lilley
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Chris Lilley
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Biron,Paul V
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Chris Lilley
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Chris Lilley
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• Urgency of IRIEverywhere-27 Paul Grosso
• RE: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Dare Obasanjo
• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Rick Jelliffe
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Rick Jelliffe
• Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke
• [Publication] 29 Oct 2002 Arch Doc Ian B. Jacobs

Tuesday, 29 October 2002

• Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent
• [Issue IRIEverywhere-27] Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? Ian B. Jacobs
• [Minutes] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, xlinkScope-23) Ian B. Jacobs

Monday, 28 October 2002

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley

Saturday, 26 October 2002

• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Paul Prescod

Friday, 25 October 2002

• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden
• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist

Thursday, 24 October 2002

• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Paul Cotton
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Dan Connolly
• [Agenda] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconference Ian B. Jacobs
• how URIs take on meaning (2.6) Dan Connolly
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Rick Jelliffe
• Re: more on URI equivalence Martin Duerst
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst

Wednesday, 23 October 2002

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Richard Tobin
• Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist

Monday, 21 October 2002

• [Minutes] 21 October 2002 TAG teleconference Ian B. Jacobs

Sunday, 20 October 2002

• more on URI equivalence Larry Masinter

Saturday, 19 October 2002

• RE: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence Joshua Allen
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Simon St.Laurent

Friday, 18 October 2002

• recent IETF naming specs [was: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf] Dan Connolly
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo
• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Larry Masinter
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Rick Jelliffe

Thursday, 17 October 2002

• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Dan Connolly
• [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Ian B. Jacobs

Wednesday, 16 October 2002

• Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon
• Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon

Tuesday, 15 October 2002

• Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst
• Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst
• RE: Binary Infosets yskim@paragonic.com

Monday, 14 October 2002

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro
• Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon
• Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Jeni Tennison
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley
• Re: Binary Infosets Chris Lilley
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Bray

Sunday, 13 October 2002

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Berners-Lee
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Ben Hammersley
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Mark Baker
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Miles Sabin
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
• http URIs as names and scalability Larry Masinter

Saturday, 12 October 2002

• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence Larry Masinter
• dvd真的不錯 a@w3.org
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Jeni Tennison
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro
• Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Simon St.Laurent
• Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Bray
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Paul Prescod

Friday, 11 October 2002

• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Berners-Lee
• Re: deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? Roy T. Fielding
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• deepLinking-25 : What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is not an illegal act? David Booth
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Simon St.Laurent
• Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Ann Navarro
• Sticking another fork in the URI issue Tim Bray
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent

Thursday, 10 October 2002

• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Miles Sabin
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Miles Sabin
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Miles Sabin
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Julian Reschke
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• Towards Colloquial XML Paul Prescod
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bill de hÓra
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden

Wednesday, 9 October 2002

• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Binary Infosets Chris Lilley
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Joshua Allen
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Dare Obasanjo
• Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon
• Re: Binary Infosets Tim Bray
• Binary Infosets Robin Berjon
• IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Graham Klyne
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bill de hÓra
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Miles Sabin
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Julian Reschke
• Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Chris Lilley
• RE: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Champion, Mike
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Dare Obasanjo
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike
• what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Roy T. Fielding

Tuesday, 8 October 2002

• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Mark Baker
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Joshua Allen
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Tim Bray
• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro
• XHTML needs multi-ended links Tim Bray
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Champion, Mike
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Mark Baker
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Dare Obasanjo
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Williams, Stuart
• [Minutes] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (xlinkScope-23, arch doc, rfc3023Charset-21) Ian B. Jacobs
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Champion, Mike
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Chris Lilley
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links DPawson@rnib.org.uk
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Berners-Lee
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent

Monday, 7 October 2002

• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Berners-Lee
• Summary of TAG activity from 4 Sep 2002 to 4 Oct 2002 Ian B. Jacobs
• Re: examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) Simon St.Laurent
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Chris Lilley
• Re: examples as opportunity Norman Walsh
• Generalization and opacity (was "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme) Mark Baker
• "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Larry Masinter
• examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) Simon St.Laurent
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Graham Klyne
• RE: HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs Bill de hÓra
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Paul Prescod
• Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden
• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Champion, Mike
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray
• Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs Tim Bray
• Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden
• Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod
• RE: The case against URNs Champion, Mike
• Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden
• HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden
• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Michael Day
• Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod
• RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Champion, Mike

Sunday, 6 October 2002

• Correction Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod
• RE: The case against URNs Champion, Mike
• The case against URNs Paul Prescod
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker

Saturday, 5 October 2002

• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Tim Bray
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) David Orchard
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod

Friday, 4 October 2002

• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Simon St.Laurent
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike
• XLink and IE, actually ... was: Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Jonathan Borden
• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Dare Obasanjo
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Roy T. Fielding
• now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike
• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Julian Reschke
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Simon St.Laurent
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Joshua Allen
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Norman Walsh
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Dan Connolly
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard
• XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Williams, Stuart
• Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Tim Bray
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bullard, Claude L (Len)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Champion, Mike
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Graham Klyne
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Eric van der Vlist
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Jeni Tennison
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Eric van der Vlist
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Jeni Tennison
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison

Thursday, 3 October 2002

• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Graham Klyne
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Mark Baker
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Bray
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Bray
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Dan Connolly
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Dare Obasanjo
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Tim Bray
• lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
• RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Julian Reschke
• Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Julian Reschke
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Gray
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden

Wednesday, 2 October 2002

• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ann Navarro
• Re: [Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Dan Connolly
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Roy T. Fielding
• Re: XLink: the architectural issue Mark Nottingham
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden
• Re: XLink: the architectural issue Norman Walsh
• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ann Navarro
• Re: XLink: the architectural issue Mark Nottingham
• [Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Ian B. Jacobs
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ian B. Jacobs
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links David Orchard
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Bray
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Ann Navarro
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links DPawson@rnib.org.uk
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bill de hÓra
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Ann Navarro
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden
• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod
• Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden

Tuesday, 1 October 2002

• RE: Minutes Williams, Stuart
• Re: Links are links Ann Navarro
• Re: Minutes Masayasu Ishikawa

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