org.w3c.tag (date)

org.w3c.tag (date)

October 31, 2002

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

October 30, 2002

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

October 29, 2002

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

October 28, 2002

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

October 26, 2002

Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car, Paul Prescod
Re: what is this? was: Re: now://example.org/car, Jonathan Borden

October 25, 2002

RE: Unecessary dependence between XPointer and DTD or W3C XML Schema, Eric van der Vlist

October 24, 2002

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

October 23, 2002

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

October 21, 2002

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

October 20, 2002

more on URI equivalence, Larry Masinter

October 19, 2002

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

October 18, 2002

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

October 17, 2002

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

October 16, 2002

Re: Binary Infosets, Robin Berjon
Re: Binary Infosets, Robin Berjon
Re: Binary Infosets, Martin Duerst
Re: Binary Infosets, Martin Duerst

October 15, 2002

Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces), Martin Duerst
Re: IRIs everywhere (including XML namespaces), Martin Duerst
RE: Binary Infosets, yskim

October 14, 2002

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

October 13, 2002

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

October 12, 2002

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

October 11, 2002

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

October 10, 2002

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

October 09, 2002

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

October 08, 2002

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

October 07, 2002

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

October 06, 2002

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

October 05, 2002

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

October 04, 2002

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

October 03, 2002

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

October 02, 2002

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

October 01, 2002

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

News | FAQ | advertise