xml-uri@w3.org from May 2000 by date

Wednesday, 31 May 2000

Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Simon St.Laurent
Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Dan Brickley
Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Simon St.Laurent
Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Graham Klyne
Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Simon St.Laurent
Chaos, Process Simon St.Laurent
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Jonathan Borden
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Eve L. Maler
Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling

Tuesday, 30 May 2000

Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Graham Klyne

Wednesday, 31 May 2000

Re: a few open questions Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Dan Brickley
a few open questions Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 30 May 2000

Re: xmlmd:foo Paul W. Abrahams
Re: xmlmd:foo Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Graham Klyne
RE: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Jonathan Marsh
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Clark C. Evans
RE: xmlmd:foo David Hunter
Re: xmlmd:foo Simon St.Laurent
Re: xmlmd:foo Paul W. Abrahams
xmlmd:foo Simon St.Laurent
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Tim Berners-Lee
Ignore that - Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Clark C. Evans
RE: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Jonathan Borden
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Eve L. Maler
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
Re: ISBNs quacking Michael Mealling
Re: URIs quack like a duck Michael Mealling
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) Simon St.Laurent
Re: URIs quack like a duck Clark C. Evans
Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Clark C. Evans

Sunday, 30 May 100

Re: URIs quack like a duck John Cowan

Monday, 29 May 2000

Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Michael Mealling
Re: ISBNs quacking Simon St.Laurent
Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) Clark C. Evans
Re: ISBNs quacking Michael Mealling
ISBNs quacking Simon St.Laurent
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: URIs quack like a duck Michael Mealling
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Simon St.Laurent

Saturday, 29 May 100

Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent John Cowan
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent John Cowan
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan

Monday, 29 May 2000

Re: URIs quack like a duck Tim Bray
Re: URIs quack like a duck Paul W. Abrahams
eXtensible Programming Language Michael Lauzon
Re: URIs quack like a duck Michael Mealling
RE: URIs quack like a duck Jonathan Borden
Re: URIs quack like a duck Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URIs quack like a duck Rick JELLIFFE
Re: URIs quack like a duck Paul W. Abrahams
URIs quack like a duck Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Peter Jacobi
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Simon St.Laurent
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Tim Berners-Lee

Sunday, 28 May 2000

RE: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Jonathan Borden
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Clark C. Evans
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Michael Mealling
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Simon St.Laurent
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Clark C. Evans
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Simon St.Laurent
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Simon St.Laurent
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal David Carlisle
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal David Carlisle
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal David Carlisle
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Liam Quin
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Roy T. Fielding
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal Paul W. Abrahams

Friday, 28 May 100

Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent John Cowan

Sunday, 28 May 2000

Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Clark C. Evans
Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent Tim Bray
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Namespace names: modified semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans

Friday, 28 May 100

Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal John Cowan
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal John Cowan
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan

Sunday, 28 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans

Saturday, 27 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Simon St.Laurent
Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal David Carlisle
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal David Carlisle
Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a (more) radical proposal Al Gilman
Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Liam Quin
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Clark C. Evans
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
RE: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Jonathan Borden
RE: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Jonathan Borden

Thursday, 27 May 100

Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan

Saturday, 27 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Paul W. Abrahams
Updating RFC2396 (Was:Re: URI versus URI Reference) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams

Friday, 26 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams

Saturday, 27 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Al Gilman
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? David Carlisle
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Liam Quin

Thursday, 27 May 100

Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan

Saturday, 27 May 2000

Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Eric van der Vlist
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Liam Quin
RE: URI versus URI Reference Larry Masinter
RE: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? Larry Masinter

Friday, 26 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal David Carlisle
Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? David Carlisle
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Eve L. Maler
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Michael Mealling

Wednesday, 26 May 100

Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? John Cowan

Friday, 26 May 2000

Re: URI versus URI Reference Al Gilman
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams

Wednesday, 26 May 100

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal John Cowan

Friday, 26 May 2000

Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Michael Mealling
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Al Gilman
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Michael Mealling
namespaces as[?] resources Al Gilman
RE: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Jonathan Borden
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Al Gilman
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Michael Mealling
Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal John Cowan
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Paul W. Abrahams
RE: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Arnold, Curt
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) John Cowan
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Paul Grosso
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) John Cowan
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
RE: Irony heaped on irony Kay Michael
Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) Eve L. Maler
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
Re: Irony heaped on irony Al Gilman
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? John Cowan
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Al Gilman
Re: A simple (hopfully not stupid) question John Cowan
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Michael Mealling
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
Re: What the namespace spec should say (was: Re: Irony heaped on irony) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Michael Mealling
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) John Cowan
What the namespace spec should say (was: Re: Irony heaped on irony) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Irony heaped on irony Paul W. Abrahams
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Al Gilman
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) John Cowan
Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Michael Mealling
are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? Jonathan Borden
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
A simple (hopfully not stupid) question Robert Hanson
Re: Irony heaped on irony Simon St.Laurent
Re: are 'cid' URLs relative? Michael Mealling
Re: Irony heaped on irony keshlam@us.ibm.com
layering issues (was which layer for URI processing) Simon St.Laurent
are 'cid' URLs relative? Al Gilman

Wednesday, 26 May 100

Re: Irony heaped on irony John Cowan

Friday, 26 May 2000

Re: Irony heaped on irony David Brownell
Re: Irony heaped on irony John Aldridge
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Brownell
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Brownell
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Brownell
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Michael Rys
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Al Gilman
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
Re: which layer for URI processing? Clark C. Evans
Re: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Tim Berners-Lee

Thursday, 25 May 2000

RE: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Larry Masinter
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: which layer for URI processing? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Inclusion loops Tim Berners-Lee
Re: URI versus URI Reference Tim Berners-Lee
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden
RE: Inclusion loops Jonathan Marsh
RE: A little courtesy, please Jonathan Marsh
Re: oral tradition Dan Brickley
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Clark C. Evans
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Simon St.Laurent
Going the other direction by removing URI language from spec? Clark C. Evans
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Ray Whitmer
RE: inclusion Nordine, Troy
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
RE: A little courtesy, please Jonathan Marsh
Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) John Cowan
Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
Re: oral tradition Michael Mealling
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
after 570 messages... Simon St.Laurent
Re: Irony heaped on irony keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul Grosso
oral tradition Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: inclusion Simon St.Laurent
Re: inclusion Paul Grosso
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
RE: inclusion Jonathan Marsh
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Simon St.Laurent
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) John Cowan
Re: Irony heaped on irony John Aldridge
Re: Irony heaped on irony keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: inclusion Simon St.Laurent
Re: inclusion Dan Brickley
Re: inclusion keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Brownell
RE: A little courtesy, please Miles Sabin
RE: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Bill dehOra
Re: inclusion W. E. Perry
Inclusion loops Robin Berjon
RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Jonathan Borden

Tuesday, 25 May 100

Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan

Thursday, 25 May 2000

inclusion Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Documents without a base URI Simon St.Laurent

Tuesday, 25 May 100

Re: Documents without a base URI John Cowan

Thursday, 25 May 2000

Documents without a base URI Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling

Wednesday, 24 May 2000

Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: which layer for URI processing? Simon St.Laurent
Re: which layer for URI processing? Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Michael Mealling
RE: which layer for URI processing? Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
Re: URI versus URI Reference Tim Berners-Lee
Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: A little courtesy, please Ray Whitmer
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: A little courtesy, please Paul W. Abrahams
Re: A little courtesy, please Ray Whitmer
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Tim Berners-Lee
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Tim Berners-Lee
Re: peace and quiet Tim Berners-Lee
A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) David G. Durand
Re: PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI Dan Brickley
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Rick JELLIFFE
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI Michael Mealling
PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI Rick JELLIFFE
Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan
Re: which layer for URI processing? John Cowan
RE: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) Jonathan Marsh
RE: A little courtesy, please Jonathan Marsh
Re: A little courtesy, please keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: which layer for URI processing? Ray Whitmer
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Sam Hunting
RE: which layer for URI processing? David E. Cleary
Re: which layer for URI processing? Paul Grosso
Re: A little courtesy, please Dan Connolly
Re: which layer for URI processing? Paul Grosso
Re: A little courtesy, please Dan Connolly
Re: which layer for URI processing? Eric van der Vlist
Re: URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) Dan Connolly
Re: which layer for URI processing? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Liam Quin
Re: which layer for URI processing? Tim Berners-Lee
which layer for URI processing? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' John Cowan
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Simon St.Laurent
Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Rick JELLIFFE
RE: A little courtesy, please Bill dehOra

Monday, 24 May 100

Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan

Wednesday, 24 May 2000

RE: peace and quiet keshlam@us.ibm.com
Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
Namespace URI schemes John Aldridge
RE: A little courtesy, please Bill dehOra

Tuesday, 23 May 2000

Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Berners-Lee

Wednesday, 24 May 2000

RE: peace and quiet Simon St.Laurent

Monday, 24 May 100

Re: URI versus URI Reference John Cowan

Wednesday, 24 May 2000

RE: peace and quiet Jonathan Borden
peace and quiet David Carlisle

Tuesday, 23 May 2000

URI versus URI Reference Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Liam Quin
Re: Call the question! Paul Grosso
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: Syntax and semantics keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Where's the bone of contention? (small clarification) Paul Grosso
Re: RDF and XML Simon St.Laurent
please limit nested inclusion of previous messages? Weibel,Stu
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Paul Grosso
Where's the bone of contention? (small clarification) Al Gilman
What's [in] a resource? Al Gilman
Re: RDF and XML Al Gilman
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A little courtesy, please David Carlisle
Verbal summary of diagram (use case for XML module semantics) Al Gilman
Re: A little courtesy, please Al Gilman
Re: Dictionaries in the library Al Gilman
RE: A little courtesy, please Miles Sabin
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? Larry Masinter
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Bray
Re: RDF and XML David Carlisle
RDF and XML Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Bray
Re: A little courtesy, please Rick JELLIFFE
RE: A little courtesy, please Miles Sabin
Re: Dictionares in the library Rick JELLIFFE
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
RE: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] Dave Hollander
Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? Rick JELLIFFE
Re: A little courtesy, please David Carlisle
RDF and XML Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Bray
Re: Dictionaries in the library Rick JELLIFFE
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A little courtesy, please Al Gilman
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
RE: A little courtesy, please Miles Sabin
Spirits of RDF and URI Simon St.Laurent
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile Rick JELLIFFE
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
Re: Call the question! Michael Champion
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? John Cowan
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: A little courtesy, please Dan Connolly
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) keshlam@us.ibm.com
AW: When are two URIs equivalent? Josef Dietl
RE: Asking the right questions: namespace documents Frank Richards
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? Eric van der Vlist
Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) David Carlisle
Re: A little courtesy, please John Cowan
Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) Dan Connolly
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Dictionares in the library Dave Hollander
Re: Call the question! Dave Hollander
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? Eric van der Vlist
Re: A little courtesy, please keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A little courtesy, please keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: When are two URIs equivalent? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Thoughts from an external observer Eric van der Vlist
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Thoughts from an external observer David Carlisle
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? James Clark
Re: A little courtesy, please W. E. Perry
Re: A little courtesy, please Eric van der Vlist
RE: A little courtesy, please Leigh Dodds
Re: A little courtesy, please David Carlisle
Re: A little courtesy, please Simon St.Laurent
RE: A little courtesy, please Miles Sabin
Re: A little courtesy, please David Carlisle
When are two URIs equivalent? Josef Dietl
Re: A little courtesy, please Tim Berners-Lee
Re: A little courtesy, please Dan Connolly
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) David Carlisle
A little courtesy, please Tim Bray
J. Clark on Bats Tim Bray
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? James Clark
Asking the right questions: namespace documents Liam Quin
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Paul W. Abrahams
Re: RDF namespace conventions Al Gilman

Monday, 22 May 2000

Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Clark C. Evans
Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? David Carlisle
Re: RDF namespace conventions W. E. Perry
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Eric van der Vlist
Re: Call the question! keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Call the question! Eric van der Vlist
Re: Call the question! Sam Hunting
Re: RDF namespace conventions Simon St.Laurent
Re: Call the question! Eric van der Vlist
Re: RDF namespace conventions Al Gilman
Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? Rick JELLIFFE
Re: Use cases Al Gilman
Re: RDF namespace conventions Eric van der Vlist
Re: RDF namespace conventions Al Gilman
Re: Irony heaped on irony Ken Irving
Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) Clark C. Evans
Re: Call the question! Simon St.Laurent
RE: Defaule base URI for files Ray Whitmer
Re: Call the question! David Carlisle
Re: Call the question! John Cowan
Call the question! keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: RDF namespace conventions David Carlisle
Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. Ray Whitmer
Re: AW: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Eric van der Vlist
Re: RDF namespace conventions Simon St.Laurent
AW: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Josef Dietl
Re: RDF namespace conventions Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's David Carlisle
Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's Paul W. Abrahams
RDF, URIs, XML Simon St.Laurent
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: Ownership of namespaces Re: Ownership of namespaces John Cowan
Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's keshlam@us.ibm.com
RFC 2396 Michael Mealling
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful John Cowan
Re: the case of two bats John Cowan
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... Julian Reschke
Re: the case of two bats David Carlisle
Re: Irony heaped on irony Christopher R. Maden

Sunday, 21 May 2000

Re: Dictionares in the library Sin Hang Kin

Monday, 22 May 2000

Re: the case of two bats Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Irony heaped on irony Paul W. Abrahams

Sunday, 21 May 2000

Re: RDF namespace conventions David Carlisle
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Dictionaries in the library Tim Berners-Lee
mid: (was RE: Irony heaped on irony) James Tauber
RE: Irony heaped on irony James Tauber
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle
Re: status quo Simon St.Laurent
RE: Dictionares in the library Al Gilman
Re: status quo Al Gilman
Thoughts from an external observer Eric van der Vlist
Re: Ownership of namespaces (was: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity.) Tim Berners-Lee
Re: RDF namespace conventions Simon St.Laurent
Re: status quo Simon St.Laurent
RE: Dictionares in the library Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful Tim Berners-Lee
RDF namespace conventions Tim Berners-Lee

Friday, 19 May 2000

Re: Irony heaped on irony Matt Sergeant
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] sam th
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Brownell

Sunday, 21 May 2000

Dictionares in the library Tim Berners-Lee

Friday, 19 May 2000

Re: Irony heaped on irony Matt Sergeant

Sunday, 21 May 2000

Re: the case of two bats David Carlisle
Ownership of namespaces (was: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity.) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
RE: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful Dan Connolly
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Dan Connolly
Re: credit due Dan Connolly
NS 1.1 ??? (was RE: Use cases) Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com
Re: status quo Dan Connolly
Re: the case of two bats Dan Connolly
Re: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle

Saturday, 20 May 2000

SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Use cases Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: Use cases Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: Defaule base URI for files Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Use cases Tim Berners-Lee
Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it Simon St.Laurent
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Carlisle
Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Persistent caches - Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Irony heaped on irony Simon St.Laurent
Re: Irony heaped on irony Tim Berners-Lee
RE: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nem es considered harmful? James Tauber
RE: Irony heaped on irony James Tauber
Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. Tim Berners-Lee
Re: URIs don't force behavior [was: Why are relative NS identifiers used?] Al Gilman
RE: Defaule base URI for files Jonathan Borden
RE: Defaule base URI for files Clark C. Evans
Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... Tim Berners-Lee
URIs don't force behavior [was: Why are relative NS identifiers used?] Tim Berners-Lee
Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? Tim Berners-Lee
RE: Defaule base URI for files Jonathan Borden
Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Need for a Unified spec? Further XPath & Namespace Divergance Paul W. Abrahams
Remember: namespaces break DTD's Paul W. Abrahams
Re: where's the beef? Al Gilman

Friday, 19 May 2000

RE: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Al Gilman
RE: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Larry Masinter
Re: where's the beef? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful John Cowan
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful David Carlisle
Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful Simon St.Laurent
The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful John Cowan
where's the beef? Al Gilman
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle
RE: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
RE: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it David Hunter
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Cowan
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle
Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan (fwd) Clark C. Evans
Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan Clark C. Evans
RE: schemas and namespaces Simon St.Laurent
RE: schemas and namespaces David E. Cleary
credit due W. E. Perry
Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan Clark C. Evans
Need for a Unified spec? Further XPath & Namespace Divergance Clark C. Evans
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Cowan
Re: status quo John Cowan
Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it John Cowan
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Cowan
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile John Cowan
schemas and namespaces Simon St.Laurent
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Cowan
Re: the case of two bats John Cowan
RE: Irony heaped on irony David E. Cleary
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Irony heaped on irony Simon St.Laurent
Re: When are 2 URI's the same? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: When are 2 URI's the same? Paul Grosso
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? Steve Rowe
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: the case of two bats Dan Connolly
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Simon St.Laurent
Re: Empty URIs John Cowan
The Moral Problem stated (was: Use cases) John Cowan
Re: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Previous XML-DEV namespace discussions Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Clark C. Evans
Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. John Cowan
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? John Cowan
Re: the case of two bats John Cowan
Re: Irony heaped on irony (packaging and schemas) Dan Connolly
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
Re: The questions and their relationship John Aldridge
Re: the case of two bats James Clark
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
Re: Irony heaped on irony james anderson
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
Re: Defaule base URI for files David Carlisle
RE: Irony heaped on irony Pawson, David
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Dan Connolly

Thursday, 18 May 2000

Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Robert Gardner
Re: Irony heaped on irony David Megginson
Re: Syntax and semantics John Robert Gardner

Friday, 19 May 2000

When are 2 URI's the same? Anthony B. Coates, ESL +61 2 9373 7972 Sydney
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Julian Reschke
Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. Ray Whitmer
Relative-URI allowed only-if <xml:base> is explicitly provided. Clark C. Evans
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Clark C. Evans
Re: Syntax and semantics Eric Bohlman

Thursday, 18 May 2000

Re: Comments on straw poll keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. Tim Berners-Lee
Defaule base URI for files Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Comments on straw poll Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better Paul W. Abrahams
Re: The questions and their relationship Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Syntax and semantics Paul Prescod
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
Re: The questions and their relationship Paul Grosso
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better Simon St.Laurent
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: The questions and their relationship W. E. Perry
Re: status quo W. E. Perry
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
The questions and their relationship Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
status quo Simon St.Laurent
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Simon St.Laurent
URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it David Hunter
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile Sam Hunting
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Al Gilman
Re: Empty URIs Al Gilman
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (\ideal) Al Gilman
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] John Robert Gardner
Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile Eve L. Maler
Terminology: `absolutization' is vile Paul W. Abrahams
Re: Irony heaped on irony Simon St.Laurent
Re: the case of two bats Tim Bray
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Simon St.Laurent
Re: Irony heaped on irony Dan Connolly
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Al Gilman
RE: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Frank Richards
Re: Fwd: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Norman Walsh
non-canonical XMLNS resources Simon St.Laurent
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Matt Sergeant
Re: the case of two bats Dan Connolly
RE: the case of two bats Julian Reschke
RE: Use cases Julian Reschke
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Simon St.Laurent
Re: the case of two bats Simon St.Laurent
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Al Gilman
Re: the case of two bats Dan Connolly
RE: Use cases David G. Durand
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] David Carlisle
Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Simon St.Laurent
Re: Empty URIs Eve L. Maler
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Simon St.Laurent
Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] Dan Connolly
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) Al Gilman
Re: Use cases Ray Whitmer
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema Simon St.Laurent
Re: looking for packaging, not a schema keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? keshlam@us.ibm.com
RE: Use cases Michael Rys
Re: the case of two bats Simon St.Laurent
Re: the case of two bats Simon St.Laurent
looking for packaging, not a schema Simon St.Laurent
Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? John Aldridge
Re: the case of two bats David Carlisle

Wednesday, 17 May 2000

RE: Use cases Julian Reschke

Tuesday, 16 May 2000

Why are relative NS identifiers used? Rick JELLIFFE
the case of two bats Dan Connolly

Thursday, 18 May 2000

Re: Use cases Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Namespace names and URIs Tim Berners-Lee
Empty URIs Tim Berners-Lee

Wednesday, 17 May 2000

Re: Use cases Tim Berners-Lee
Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Syntax and semantics Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Syntax and semantics Tim Berners-Lee
RE: A proposal Steve Rowe
RE: Use cases Michael Rys
Re: Syntax and semantics asgilman@iamdigex.net
RE: A proposal Larry Masinter
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. Ray Whitmer
A proposal Steve Rowe
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Al Gilman
RE: Use cases David G. Durand
Fwd: Irony heaped on irony Simon St.Laurent
Re: URLs and URNs keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Syntax and semantics keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Comments on straw poll keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? W. E. Perry
Re: URLs and URNs John Cowan
URLs and URNs David Hunter
RE: Use cases David E. Cleary
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Use cases David G. Durand
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Comments on straw poll John Cowan
Re: Namespace names and URIs Tim Bray
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Larry Masinter
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Relative URIs were never intended as a namespace name. David Carlisle
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry

Tuesday, 16 May 2000

Re: Namespace names and URIs Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam)
Re: Namespace names and URIs Dave Hollander

Wednesday, 17 May 2000

RE: Use cases Julian Reschke
Relative URIs were never intended as a namespace name. Clark C. Evans
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Eve L. Maler
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? W. E. Perry
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
Re: Use cases Simon St.Laurent
Re: Syntax and semantics Chris Angus
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Jonathan Robie
Re: Syntax and semantics Jonathan Robie
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
RE: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Paul Grosso
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Aldridge
Namespace Identifier: The Hook Jonathan Robie
Re: Syntax and semantics Jonathan Robie
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? David Carlisle
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Syntax and semantics Tim Berners-Lee
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Pawson, David
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Jonathan Borden
RE: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Jonathan Borden
Re: Use cases Michael Rys

Tuesday, 16 May 2000

Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
Theory and practice of URIs and Namespace names Larry Masinter
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
Dereferencability was: URIs as namespaces Tim Berners-Lee
RE: The trouble with absolutizing... Larry Masinter
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
RE: Syntax and semantics Andrew Layman
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: A thought about relative URI comparison John Cowan
Re: Syntax and semantics W. E. Perry
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
A thought about relative URI comparison David G. Durand
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Paul Grosso
RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace names considered harmful? Dan Vint
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Syntax and semantics Paul Prescod
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Use cases Simon St.Laurent
Re: The trouble with absolutizing... Niclas Olofsson
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
Re: The trouble with absolutizing... Niclas Olofsson
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Namespace names and URIs John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Use cases John Cowan
Re: Syntax and semantics Jonathan Robie
Re: The trouble with absolutizing... Jonathan Borden
RE: Use cases Leigh Dodds
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Jonathan Robie
Re: Use cases David Carlisle
Syntax and semantics Paul Prescod
RE: Use cases Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Simon St.Laurent
RE: Use cases David E. Cleary
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Jonathan Borden
Use cases Simon St.Laurent
RE: The trouble with absolutizing... David E. Cleary
Re: A minor point about xmlns="" Eve L. Maler
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
A minor point about xmlns="" John Cowan
The trouble with absolutizing... John Cowan
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? John Cowan
Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list W. E. Perry
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? keshlam@us.ibm.com
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Namespace names and URIs Tim Bray
RE: Joining/leaving xml-URI@w3.org Andrew Layman

Monday, 15 May 2000

Multiple paths to a namespace URI Simon St.Laurent
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Michael Champion
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Paul Grosso
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful Jonathan Robie
Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful Jonathan Robie
Having your strings and identity too.... Jonathan Robie
URIs as namespaces Paul Prescod
Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list W. E. Perry
Joining/leaving xml-URI@w3.org Tim Berners-Lee
Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list Clark C. Evans
Re: Fw: Welcome to the XML-URI list Simon St.Laurent
Fw: Welcome to the XML-URI list Michael Champion
Re: W3C XML "Coordination" Hassle Tim Berners-Lee
Welcome to the XML-URI list Tim Berners-Lee

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 May 2000 18:13:54 UTC