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

Al Gilman

• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a (more) radical proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• namespaces as[?] resources (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• Where's the bone of contention? (small clarification) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• What's [in] a resource? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF and XML (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Verbal summary of diagram (use case for XML module semantics) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Dictionaries in the library (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Use cases (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• RE: Dictionares in the library (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: status quo (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: URIs don't force behavior [was: Why are relative NS identifiers used?] (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: where's the beef? (Saturday, 20 May)
• RE: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Friday, 19 May)
• where's the beef? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Empty URIs (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (\ideal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)

Andrew Layman

• RE: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• RE: Joining/leaving xml-URI@w3.org (Tuesday, 16 May)

Anthony B. Coates, ESL +61 2 9373 7972 Sydney

• When are 2 URI's the same? (Friday, 19 May)

Arnold, Curt

• RE: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)

asgilman@iamdigex.net

• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)

Bill dehOra

• RE: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)

Chris Angus

• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)

Christopher R. Maden

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Monday, 22 May)

Clark C. Evans

• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Namespace names: modified semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Going the other direction by removing URI language from spec? (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• RE: Defaule base URI for files (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan (fwd) (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan (Friday, 19 May)
• Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan (Friday, 19 May)
• Need for a Unified spec? Further XPath & Namespace Divergance (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Relative-URI allowed only-if <xml:base> is explicitly provided. (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Relative URIs were never intended as a namespace name. (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list (Monday, 15 May)

Dan Brickley

• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: oral tradition (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI (Wednesday, 24 May)

Dan Connolly

• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: credit due (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: status quo (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (packaging and schemas) (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)
• the case of two bats (Tuesday, 16 May)

Dan Vint

• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace names considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)

Dave Hollander

• RE: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Dictionares in the library (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Namespace names and URIs (Tuesday, 16 May)

David Brownell

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)

David Carlisle

• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Friday, 26 May)
• peace and quiet (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF and XML (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Thoughts from an external observer (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Use cases (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Use cases (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Use cases (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Use cases (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Use cases (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Defaule base URI for files (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Relative URIs were never intended as a namespace name. (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)

David E. Cleary

• RE: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: schemas and namespaces (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• RE: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• RE: The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)

David G. Durand

• A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• RE: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• A thought about relative URI comparison (Tuesday, 16 May)

David Hunter

• RE: xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• RE: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Friday, 19 May)
• URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Thursday, 18 May)
• URLs and URNs (Wednesday, 17 May)

David Megginson

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 18 May)

Eric Bohlman

• Re: Syntax and semantics (Friday, 19 May)

Eric van der Vlist

• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Thoughts from an external observer (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: AW: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 22 May)
• Thoughts from an external observer (Sunday, 21 May)

Eve L. Maler

• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Empty URIs (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: A minor point about xmlns="" (Tuesday, 16 May)

Frank Richards

• RE: Asking the right questions: namespace documents (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)

Graham Klyne

• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)

james anderson

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)

James Clark

• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Friday, 19 May)

James Tauber

• mid: (was RE: Irony heaped on irony) (Sunday, 21 May)
• RE: Irony heaped on irony (Sunday, 21 May)
• RE: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nem es considered harmful? (Saturday, 20 May)
• RE: Irony heaped on irony (Saturday, 20 May)

Joe Kesselman (yclept Keshlam)

• Re: Namespace names and URIs (Tuesday, 16 May)

John Aldridge

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 25 May)
• Namespace URI schemes (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: The questions and their relationship (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)

John Cowan

• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Sunday, 30 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Saturday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Friday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Friday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Thursday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Thursday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Thursday, 27 May)
• Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Wednesday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Wednesday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A simple (hopfully not stupid) question (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Wednesday, 26 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Tuesday, 25 May)
• Re: Documents without a base URI (Tuesday, 25 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Monday, 24 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Monday, 24 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Use cases (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Ownership of namespaces Re: Ownership of namespaces (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Use cases (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Friday, 19 May)
• The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: status quo (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Use cases (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Empty URIs (Friday, 19 May)
• The Moral Problem stated (was: Use cases) (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: URLs and URNs (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Comments on straw poll (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: A thought about relative URI comparison (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Namespace names and URIs (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• A minor point about xmlns="" (Tuesday, 16 May)
• The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)

John Robert Gardner

• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)

Jonathan Borden

• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• RE: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• RE: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• RE: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Saturday, 27 May)
• RE: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• RE: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• RE: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: peace and quiet (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: Defaule base URI for files (Saturday, 20 May)
• RE: Defaule base URI for files (Saturday, 20 May)
• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• RE: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)

Jonathan Marsh

• RE: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• RE: Inclusion loops (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (resource questions) (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)

Jonathan Robie

• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Namespace Identifier: The Hook (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful (Monday, 15 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful (Monday, 15 May)
• Having your strings and identity too.... (Monday, 15 May)

Josef Dietl

• AW: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• AW: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 22 May)

Julian Reschke

• a few open questions (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... (Monday, 22 May)
• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• RE: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• RE: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• RE: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)

Kay Michael

• RE: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)

Ken Irving

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Monday, 22 May)

keshlam@us.ibm.com

• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: peace and quiet (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: where's the beef? (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: When are 2 URI's the same? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Comments on straw poll (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: URLs and URNs (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Comments on straw poll (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)

Larry Masinter

• RE: URI versus URI Reference (Saturday, 27 May)
• RE: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• RE: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: A proposal (Wednesday, 17 May)
• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Theory and practice of URIs and Namespace names (Tuesday, 16 May)
• RE: The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)

Leigh Dodds

• RE: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)

Liam Quin

• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Asking the right questions: namespace documents (Tuesday, 23 May)

Matt Sergeant

• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)

Michael Champion

• Re: Call the question! (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 15 May)
• Fw: Welcome to the XML-URI list (Monday, 15 May)

Michael Lauzon

• eXtensible Programming Language (Monday, 29 May)

Michael Mealling

• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: ISBNs quacking (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: ISBNs quacking (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: oral tradition (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RFC 2396 (Monday, 22 May)

Michael Rys

• RE: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• RE: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• RE: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)

Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com

• RE: Dictionares in the library (Sunday, 21 May)
• RE: SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Sunday, 21 May)
• NS 1.1 ??? (was RE: Use cases) (Sunday, 21 May)

Miles Sabin

• RE: A little courtesy, please (Thursday, 25 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RE: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)

Niclas Olofsson

• Re: The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: The trouble with absolutizing... (Tuesday, 16 May)

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

• Ownership of namespaces (was: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity.) (Sunday, 21 May)

Nordine, Troy

• RE: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)

Norman Walsh

• Re: Fwd: Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Thursday, 18 May)

Paul Grosso

• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Where's the bone of contention? (small clarification) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are 2 URI's the same? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: The questions and their relationship (Thursday, 18 May)
• RE: Rules for absolutizing: was Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 15 May)

Paul Prescod

• Re: Syntax and semantics (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• URIs as namespaces (Monday, 15 May)

Paul W. Abrahams

• Re: a few open questions (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Sunday, 28 May)
• Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Updating RFC2396 (Was:Re: URI versus URI Reference) (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: are many URIs ultimately relative? was RE: are 'cid' URLs relative? (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: What the namespace spec should say (was: Re: Irony heaped on irony) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• What the namespace spec should say (was: Re: Irony heaped on irony) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• URI versus URI Reference (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Remember: namespaces break DTD's (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Not-So-Pretty Staged Plan (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Need for a Unified spec? Further XPath & Namespace Divergance (Saturday, 20 May)
• Remember: namespaces break DTD's (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: The questions and their relationship (Thursday, 18 May)
• The questions and their relationship (Thursday, 18 May)
• Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (Thursday, 18 May)

Pawson, David

• RE: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)

Peter Jacobi

• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Monday, 29 May)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: Defaule base URI for files (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Wednesday, 17 May)

Rick JELLIFFE

• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• PUBLIC v. SYSTEM not URI v. FPI (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Dictionares in the library (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Dictionaries in the library (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Monday, 22 May)
• Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Tuesday, 16 May)

Robert Hanson

• A simple (hopfully not stupid) question (Friday, 26 May)

Robin Berjon

• Inclusion loops (Thursday, 25 May)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Sunday, 28 May)

Sam Hunting

• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile (Thursday, 18 May)

sam th

• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)

Simon St.Laurent

• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Chaos, Process (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• xmlmd:foo (Tuesday, 30 May)
• RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: ISBNs quacking (Monday, 29 May)
• ISBNs quacking (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 26 May)
• layering issues (was which layer for URI processing) (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion) (Thursday, 25 May)
• after 570 messages... (Thursday, 25 May)
• oral tradition (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Documents without a base URI (Thursday, 25 May)
• Documents without a base URI (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• RE: peace and quiet (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: RDF and XML (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RDF and XML (Tuesday, 23 May)
• RDF and XML (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Spirits of RDF and URI (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Swamped (Was:Re: Call the question!) (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Call the question! (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• RDF, URIs, XML (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: status quo (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: status quo (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: schemas and namespaces (Friday, 19 May)
• schemas and namespaces (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Friday, 19 May)
• Previous XML-DEV namespace discussions (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Terminology: `absolutization' is vile, but nothing else is better (Thursday, 18 May)
• status quo (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• non-canonical XMLNS resources (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (-NOT, counterproposal) (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: looking for packaging, not a schema (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• looking for packaging, not a schema (Thursday, 18 May)
• Fwd: Irony heaped on irony (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• RE: Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Use cases (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Multiple paths to a namespace URI (Monday, 15 May)
• Re: Fw: Welcome to the XML-URI list (Monday, 15 May)

Sin Hang Kin

• Re: Dictionares in the library (Sunday, 21 May)

Steve Rowe

• Re: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Friday, 19 May)
• RE: A proposal (Wednesday, 17 May)
• A proposal (Wednesday, 17 May)

Tim Berners-Lee

• Re: RDF/XML/Internet Collisons, Process (was Moving on) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Wednesday, 31 May)
• Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Injective Quality (Was: Re: URIs quack like a duck) (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Ignore that - Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Attribute uniqueness test: a radical proposal (Tuesday, 30 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis? (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a modification of a semi-serious proposal (Monday, 29 May)
• Re: Namespace names: a semi-serious proposal (Saturday, 27 May)
• Re: XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Friday, 26 May)
• Re: Inclusion loops (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: URI versus URI Reference (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?) (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• XML semantics was: Web Architecture, 'XML Autonomy' (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: peace and quiet (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: which layer for URI processing? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 24 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: When are two URIs equivalent? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... (Monday, 22 May)
• Re: Toward the self-describing web [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Dictionaries in the library (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: Ownership of namespaces (was: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity.) (Sunday, 21 May)
• Re: The "data:" URI scheme considered helpful (Sunday, 21 May)
• RDF namespace conventions (Sunday, 21 May)
• Dictionares in the library (Sunday, 21 May)
• SIgh [was: Irony heaped on irony] (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Use cases (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Use cases (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Defaule base URI for files (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Use cases (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: URLs for Namespaces: I don't buy it (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Persistent caches - (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Irony heaped on irony (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Saturday, 20 May)
• Name services was: Persistent caches - was: ... (Saturday, 20 May)
• URIs don't force behavior [was: Why are relative NS identifiers used?] (Saturday, 20 May)
• Database example; was: Why are relative NS identifiers used? (Saturday, 20 May)
• Re: Problems I cannot get past with using relative URIs for identity. (Thursday, 18 May)
• Defaule base URI for files (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Comments on straw poll (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Use cases (Thursday, 18 May)
• Empty URIs (Thursday, 18 May)
• Persistent caches - was: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Namespace names and URIs (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Use cases (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Dereferencability was: URIs as namespaces (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Monday, 15 May)
• Joining/leaving xml-URI@w3.org (Monday, 15 May)
• Re: W3C XML "Coordination" Hassle (Monday, 15 May)
• Welcome to the XML-URI list (Monday, 15 May)

Tim Bray

• Re: URIs quack like a duck (Monday, 29 May)
• Namespace-by-retrieval is consistent and coherent (Sunday, 28 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• J. Clark on Bats (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: the case of two bats (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Namespace names and URIs (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Namespace names and URIs (Tuesday, 16 May)

W. E. Perry

• Re: inclusion (Thursday, 25 May)
• Re: A little courtesy, please (Tuesday, 23 May)
• Re: RDF namespace conventions (Monday, 22 May)
• credit due (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Friday, 19 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: The questions and their relationship (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: status quo (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Thursday, 18 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Are *relative* URIs as namespace nemes considered harmful? (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Wednesday, 17 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Syntax and semantics (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list (Tuesday, 16 May)
• Re: Welcome to the XML-URI list (Monday, 15 May)

Weibel,Stu

• please limit nested inclusion of previous messages? (Tuesday, 23 May)

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