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

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

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

[Agenda] 4 Nov 2002 TAG teleconference (meetings, arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, URIEquivalence-15) Ian B. Jacobs (Thursday, 31 October)

Summary of discussion TAG and www-tag on xlinkScope-23, XLink/HLi nk Williams, Stuart (Thursday, 31 October)

Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)

• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Rick Jelliffe (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)
• RE: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Dare Obasanjo (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)
    • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
      • Re: Possible issue: XXE (Xml eXternal Entity) attack Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 30 October)

[Publication] 29 Oct 2002 Arch Doc Ian B. Jacobs (Wednesday, 30 October)

Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent (Tuesday, 29 October)

• Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent (Wednesday, 30 October)
    • Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Dan Connolly (Thursday, 31 October)
    • Re: Use of fragment identifiers in XML Simon St.Laurent (Thursday, 31 October)
    • Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Aaron Swartz (Thursday, 31 October)
      • Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 1 November)
        • Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Aaron Swartz (Friday, 1 November)
          • Re: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 1 November)

[Issue IRIEverywhere-27] Should W3C specifications start promoting IRIs? Ian B. Jacobs (Tuesday, 29 October)

[Minutes] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (arch doc, IRIEverywhere-27, xlinkScope-23) Ian B. Jacobs (Tuesday, 29 October)

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

[Agenda] 28 Oct 2002 TAG teleconference Ian B. Jacobs (Thursday, 24 October)

how URIs take on meaning (2.6) Dan Connolly (Thursday, 24 October)

Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist (Wednesday, 23 October)

• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Paul Cotton (Thursday, 24 October)
• RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist (Friday, 25 October)
  • RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema Eric van der Vlist (Wednesday, 30 October)

[Minutes] 21 October 2002 TAG teleconference Ian B. Jacobs (Monday, 21 October)

more on URI equivalence Larry Masinter (Sunday, 20 October)

• Re: more on URI equivalence Martin Duerst (Thursday, 24 October)

RE: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence Joshua Allen (Saturday, 19 October)

[Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Ian B. Jacobs (Thursday, 17 October)

• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Dan Connolly (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Larry Masinter (Friday, 18 October)
  • recent IETF naming specs [was: [Agenda] 21 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf] Dan Connolly (Friday, 18 October)

http URIs as names and scalability Larry Masinter (Sunday, 13 October)

• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Miles Sabin (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Mark Baker (Sunday, 13 October)
• Re: http URIs as names and scalability Ben Hammersley (Sunday, 13 October)

Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue: equality vs. equivalence Larry Masinter (Saturday, 12 October)

dvd真的不錯 a@w3.org (Saturday, 12 October)

Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Bray (Saturday, 12 October)

• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro (Saturday, 12 October)
  • Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Berners-Lee (Sunday, 13 October)
    • Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Tim Bray (Monday, 14 October)
    • Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo (Saturday, 12 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Ann Navarro (Saturday, 12 October)
• Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Jeni Tennison (Saturday, 12 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo (Monday, 14 October)
  • Re: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Jeni Tennison (Monday, 14 October)
  • RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Rick Jelliffe (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Dare Obasanjo (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Potential TAG issue in re consistency, Schema, etc. Simon St.Laurent (Saturday, 19 October)

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

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

Towards Colloquial XML Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)

Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Wednesday, 9 October)

• Re: Binary Infosets Tim Bray (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: Binary Infosets Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst (Saturday, 12 October)
    • Re: Binary Infosets Chris Lilley (Monday, 14 October)
      • Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Monday, 14 October)
        • RE: Binary Infosets yskim@paragonic.com (Tuesday, 15 October)
      • Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst (Tuesday, 15 October)
        • Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Wednesday, 16 October)
    • Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Monday, 14 October)
      • Re: Binary Infosets Martin Duerst (Tuesday, 15 October)
        • Re: Binary Infosets Robin Berjon (Wednesday, 16 October)

IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Jonathan Marsh (Wednesday, 9 October)

• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold (Thursday, 10 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Jonathan Marsh (Thursday, 10 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley (Monday, 28 October)
    • RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke (Wednesday, 30 October)
      • RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Rick Jelliffe (Wednesday, 30 October)
        • RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke (Wednesday, 30 October)
      • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
        • RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Julian Reschke (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold (Friday, 11 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley (Monday, 14 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst (Tuesday, 15 October)
    • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Misha.Wolf@reuters.com (Sunday, 13 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Elliotte Rusty Harold (Sunday, 13 October)
    • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Rick Jelliffe (Thursday, 24 October)
      • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley (Monday, 28 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Misha.Wolf@reuters.com (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Richard Tobin (Wednesday, 23 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Martin Duerst (Thursday, 24 October)
• RE: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Biron,Paul V (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 30 October)
  • Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces) Tim Bray (Thursday, 31 October)

XHTML needs multi-ended links Tim Bray (Tuesday, 8 October)

• Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Tim Bray (Tuesday, 8 October)
    • Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro (Tuesday, 8 October)
    • Re: XHTML needs multi-ended links Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 9 October)

[Minutes] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf (xlinkScope-23, arch doc, rfc3023Charset-21) Ian B. Jacobs (Tuesday, 8 October)

Summary of TAG activity from 4 Sep 2002 to 4 Oct 2002 Ian B. Jacobs (Monday, 7 October)

"duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Larry Masinter (Monday, 7 October)

• Generalization and opacity (was "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme) Mark Baker (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Chris Lilley (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Champion, Mike (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Williams, Stuart (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Dare Obasanjo (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Mark Baker (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Champion, Mike (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • Re: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Mark Baker (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: "duri" as a URI-based URN scheme Graham Klyne (Wednesday, 9 October)

now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko (Friday, 4 October)

• RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Friday, 4 October)
  • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker (Saturday, 5 October)
    • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Saturday, 5 October)
      • Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker (Sunday, 6 October)
        • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Tuesday, 8 October)
          • Re: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike (Sunday, 6 October)
    • The case against URNs Paul Prescod (Sunday, 6 October)
      • RE: The case against URNs Champion, Mike (Sunday, 6 October)
        • Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod (Monday, 7 October)
          • Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden (Monday, 7 October)
        • HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden (Monday, 7 October)
          • RE: HTTP URIs need not be ambiguous, was Re: The case against URNs Bill de hÓra (Monday, 7 October)
      • Correction Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod (Sunday, 6 October)
        • RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Champion, Mike (Monday, 7 October)
          • RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Michael Day (Monday, 7 October)
          • Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs Tim Bray (Monday, 7 October)
        • RE: Correction Re: The case against URNs Champion, Mike (Monday, 7 October)
          • Re: Correction Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden (Monday, 7 October)
      • RE: The case against URNs Champion, Mike (Monday, 7 October)
        • Re: The case against URNs Paul Prescod (Monday, 7 October)
        • Re: The case against URNs Jonathan Borden (Monday, 7 October)
  • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • RE: //example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Joshua Allen (Tuesday, 8 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Graham Klyne (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Micah Dubinko (Monday, 7 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Monday, 7 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 9 October)
    • what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 9 October)
      • RE: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Champion, Mike (Wednesday, 9 October)
      • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Chris Lilley (Wednesday, 9 October)
        • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 9 October)
          • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Dan Connolly (Thursday, 24 October)
            • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden (Friday, 25 October)
            • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Paul Prescod (Saturday, 26 October)
      • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Miles Sabin (Wednesday, 9 October)
        • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Jonathan Borden (Thursday, 10 October)
          • Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car Miles Sabin (Thursday, 10 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Julian Reschke (Wednesday, 9 October)
    • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bill de hÓra (Wednesday, 9 October)
      • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Thursday, 10 October)
        • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)
    • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)
      • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Julian Reschke (Thursday, 10 October)
        • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)
          • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Mark Baker (Thursday, 10 October)
          • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Miles Sabin (Thursday, 10 October)
            • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)
            • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Miles Sabin (Thursday, 10 October)
      • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Thursday, 10 October)
        • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Thursday, 10 October)
        • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Thursday, 10 October)
          • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 11 October)
            • Sticking another fork in the URI issue Tim Bray (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Ann Navarro (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Paul Prescod (Saturday, 12 October)
            • Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Paul Prescod (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: Sticking another fork in the URI issue Simon St.Laurent (Saturday, 12 October)
            • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Paul Prescod (Friday, 11 October)
            • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden (Friday, 11 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Champion, Mike (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Dare Obasanjo (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Dare Obasanjo (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden (Thursday, 10 October)
    • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) David Orchard (Thursday, 10 October)
      • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Jonathan Borden (Thursday, 10 October)
  • RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bill de hÓra (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Joshua Allen (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Thursday, 10 October)
    • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 11 October)
      • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 11 October)
        • Re: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 11 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Thursday, 10 October)
• RE: now://example.org/car (was lack of consensus on httpRange-14) Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Friday, 11 October)

XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray (Friday, 4 October)

• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray (Friday, 4 October)
    • XLink and IE, actually ... was: Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Jonathan Borden (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 4 October)
      • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray (Monday, 7 October)
        • examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) Simon St.Laurent (Monday, 7 October)
          • Re: examples as opportunity Norman Walsh (Monday, 7 October)
          • Re: examples as opportunity (was Re: XHTML & hyper...) Simon St.Laurent (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Tim Bray (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Chris Lilley (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Dare Obasanjo (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Champion, Mike (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Saturday, 5 October)
  • RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) David Orchard (Saturday, 5 October)
  • Re: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) Paul Prescod (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: XHTML & hyperlinking opinions (long, sorry) noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com (Saturday, 5 October)

Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Tim Bray (Friday, 4 October)

• Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro (Saturday, 5 October)
      • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Roy T. Fielding (Wednesday, 9 October)
        • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 9 October)
  • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Tim Bray (Saturday, 5 October)
    • Re: Enhance XLink: infer xlink:type Ann Navarro (Saturday, 5 October)

Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh (Thursday, 3 October)

• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Jeni Tennison (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Jeni Tennison (Friday, 4 October)
      • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
      • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Eric van der Vlist (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Eric van der Vlist (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: Is XHTML a dead end? Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)

lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Thursday, 3 October)

• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Dan Connolly (Thursday, 3 October)
  • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Thursday, 3 October)
    • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Bray (Thursday, 3 October)
    • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Berners-Lee (Monday, 7 October)
      • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Mark Baker (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Tim Bray (Thursday, 3 October)
  • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Thursday, 3 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Graham Klyne (Thursday, 3 October)
  • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard (Thursday, 3 October)
    • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Graham Klyne (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Champion, Mike (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Williams, Stuart (Friday, 4 October)
  • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 4 October)
      • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 David Orchard (Friday, 4 October)
        • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Dan Connolly (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Joshua Allen (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 4 October)
• Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 4 October)
  • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Julian Reschke (Friday, 4 October)
    • RE: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 4 October)
  • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding (Friday, 4 October)
    • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Simon St.Laurent (Friday, 4 October)
      • Re: lack of consensus on httpRange-14 Roy T. Fielding (Saturday, 5 October)

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

• Re: XLink: the architectural issue Norman Walsh (Wednesday, 2 October)
  • Re: XLink: the architectural issue Mark Nottingham (Wednesday, 2 October)

[Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Ian B. Jacobs (Wednesday, 2 October)

• Re: [Agenda] 7 Oct 2002 TAG teleconf Dan Connolly (Wednesday, 2 October)

[Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ian B. Jacobs (Wednesday, 2 October)

• Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 2 October)
  • Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Roy T. Fielding (Wednesday, 2 October)
    • Re: [Minutes] 24-25 Sep TAG ftf meeting Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 2 October)
• rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Julian Reschke (Thursday, 3 October)
  • Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Misha.Wolf@reuters.com (Thursday, 3 October)
    • RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Julian Reschke (Thursday, 3 October)
  • RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Misha.Wolf@reuters.com (Thursday, 3 October)
  • Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Tim Bray (Thursday, 3 October)
  • RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 Dare Obasanjo (Thursday, 3 October)

Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 2 October)

• Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
  • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 2 October)
    • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
      • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 2 October)
    • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 2 October)
      • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Wednesday, 2 October)
        • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Ann Navarro (Wednesday, 2 October)
          • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links David Orchard (Wednesday, 2 October)
        • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
          • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Bray (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Thursday, 3 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Thursday, 3 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Thursday, 3 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Gray (Thursday, 3 October)
          • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Thursday, 3 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jeni Tennison (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Friday, 4 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Saturday, 5 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Paul Prescod (Wednesday, 2 October)
          • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Jonathan Borden (Wednesday, 2 October)
            • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Norman Walsh (Thursday, 3 October)
  • RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bill de hÓra (Wednesday, 2 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links DPawson@rnib.org.uk (Wednesday, 2 October)
  • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Berners-Lee (Tuesday, 8 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Bullard, Claude L (Len) (Friday, 4 October)
• RE: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links DPawson@rnib.org.uk (Tuesday, 8 October)
  • Re: Why not XHTML+RDF? was Re: Links are links Tim Berners-Lee (Friday, 11 October)

RE: Minutes Williams, Stuart (Tuesday, 1 October)

Re: Links are links Ann Navarro (Tuesday, 1 October)

Re: Minutes Masayasu Ishikawa (Tuesday, 1 October)

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