ISSUE-60

webApplicationState-60

Web Application State Management

State:

OPEN

Product:

Raised by:

T.V. Raman

Opened on:

2007-12-14

Description:

The TAG has openned a new issues, webApplicationState-60, around which to organise discussion of application state management techniques, partitioning of application state between origin servers and web clients, particularly rich web clients.

An earlier draft finding "State in Web application design" http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/state.html is relevant to this issue. 

In addition, recent threads on www-tag and related blog entries have discussed the use of URI fragId and user agent history stacks as a mechanism for managing client side state and for passing parameters from servers to rich web clients.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jul/0148
http://xml-applications.blogspot.com/2007/11/toward-url-equality-for-web-clients-and.html

Regards

Stuart Williams
for W3C TAG

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-50 on Rhys Lewis to Investigate two AJAX libraries and see how well they support exposing URIs for intermediate results. - due 2007-11-28, closed
• ACTION-91 on T.V. Raman to Write a finding about the current state of application state management on the web. - due 2008-02-18, closed
• ACTION-105 on T.V. Raman to Send email about growth of context dependence in URI interpretation - due 2008-03-04, closed
• ACTION-118 on T.V. Raman to Call for review of "Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters" draft finding after collecting any input for a week - due 2008-03-06, closed
• ACTION-120 on Dan Connolly to Review of "Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters" , preferably this week - due 2008-03-20, closed
• ACTION-119 on Henry S. Thompson to Henry review of "Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters" , preferably this week - due 2008-03-27, closed
• ACTION-142 on Norman Walsh to Review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60 - due 2008-11-28, closed
• ACTION-193 on Dan Connolly to Try to draft a blog posting adapted from http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url, with help from TVR - due 2009-02-25, closed
• ACTION-143 on Stuart Williams to Review Raman's draft of webApplicationState-60 - due 2009-03-03, closed
• ACTION-144 on Noah Mendelsohn to Attempt to articulate some of the higher level questions for inclusion in the draft. - due 2009-03-03, closed
• ACTION-234 on John Kemp to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication - due 2009-03-11, closed
• ACTION-235 on Ashok Malhotra to Review the current draft of Usage Patterns For Client-Side URL parameters for possible publication - due 2009-03-11, closed
• ACTION-247 on to Noah to schedule followup on Raman proposal: publish issue 60 draft - due 2009-03-24, closed
• ACTION-248 on T.V. Raman to Prepare a new draft of http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/hash-in-url-20080320.html for review by the group - due 2009-04-02, closed
• ACTION-236 on Noah Mendelsohn to Schedule discussion of the stress on media types imposed by client-side synthesised content - due 2009-05-05, closed
• ACTION-266 on Noah Mendelsohn to Send a note to www-tag pointing out that discussion is open on the WD for ISSUE-60 - due 2009-05-14, closed

Related emails:

1. Agenda for TAG teleconference of 28 May 2009 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-27)
2. Draft minutes of TAG teleconference of 21 May 2009 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-26)
3. Next steps on TAG ISSUE-60 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-20)
4. Agenda for 21 May 2009 TAG Teleconference and Start of F2F Agenda Planning (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-19)
5. Minutes of the 7th May TAG teleconference (from john.kemp@nokia.com on 2009-05-15)
6. Re: Who is willing to shepherd TAG ISSUE-60? (was: Re: [hash-in-uri] pushState()) (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-11)
7. Who is willing to shepherd TAG ISSUE-60? (was: Re: [hash-in-uri] pushState()) (from raman@google.com on 2009-05-11)
8. Who is willing to shepherd TAG ISSUE-60? (was: Re: [hash-in-uri] pushState()) (from raman@google.com on 2009-05-11)
9. Who is willing to shepherd TAG ISSUE-60? (was: Re: [hash-in-uri] pushState()) (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-11)
10. Agenda for TAG teleconference of 7 May 2009 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-05-05)
11. Re: ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-06)
12. RE: ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-04-03)
13. Re: ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from john.kemp@nokia.com on 2009-04-03)
14. Re: incorrect link in 04-02-agenda (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-02)
15. Re: ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-02)
16. Approved minutes of the TAG F2F of 3-5 March 2009 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-02)
17. incorrect link in 04-02-agenda (from jar@creativecommons.org on 2009-04-02)
18. Re: ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from john.kemp@nokia.com on 2009-04-02)
19. ISSUE-60: Important 2002 email from Roy Fielding on history of fragment identifiers (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-01)
20. ISSUE-60: Name of draft should be changed to refer to URI's not URL's (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-04-01)
21. Fw: Temporary publications schedule: Tuesdays and Thursdays (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-31)
22. Setting TAG Priorities - Review of discussion and planning to date (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-22)
23. Re: Hash In URLs: (from raman@google.com on 2009-03-16)
24. Re: Hash In URLs: (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-16)
25. RE: TAG Pending Review Action Items (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-13)
26. Re: TAG Pending Review Action Items (from jar@creativecommons.org on 2009-03-11)
27. RE: TAG Pending Review Action Items (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-03-11)
28. RE: Agenda for TAG teleconference of 12 March 2009 (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-03-11)
29. RE: Agenda for TAG teleconference of 12 March 2009 (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-03-10)
30. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
31. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-10)
32. Agenda for TAG teleconference of 12 March 2009 (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-10)
33. TAG Pending Review Action Items (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-10)
34. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
35. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from simonp@opera.com on 2009-03-09)
36. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-03-06)
37. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-06)
38. RE: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com on 2009-03-06)
39. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-06)
40. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-06)
41. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from john.kemp@nokia.com on 2009-03-05)
42. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-05)
43. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-05)
44. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-05)
45. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from timbl@w3.org on 2009-03-05)
46. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2009-03-05)
47. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
48. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2009-03-05)
49. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
50. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-03-05)
51. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
52. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-05)
53. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-05)
54. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
55. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-04)
56. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
57. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
58. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
59. Re: Hash In URLs: (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-03-04)
60. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-02)
61. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
62. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
63. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-01)
64. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
65. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
66. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-01)
67. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
68. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
69. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
70. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
71. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
72. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
73. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from pjt47@cam.ac.uk on 2009-03-01)
74. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
75. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
76. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
77. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
78. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
79. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
80. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
81. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
82. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
83. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
84. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-03-01)
85. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
86. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-01)
87. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
88. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
89. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
90. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
91. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
92. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2009-02-28)
93. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
94. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
95. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
96. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
97. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
98. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
99. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
100. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-02-28)
101. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-28)
102. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
103. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-28)
104. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-02-28)
105. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
106. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
107. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
108. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
109. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
110. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
111. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
112. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
113. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
114. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
115. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
116. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
117. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from fielding@gbiv.com on 2009-02-27)
118. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-27)
119. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
120. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
121. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-02-27)
122. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
123. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
124. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
125. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
126. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-27)
127. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
128. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
129. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
130. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-02-27)
131. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
132. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
133. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
134. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
135. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
136. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
137. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from shane@aptest.com on 2009-02-27)
138. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
139. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl@la-grange.net on 2009-02-27)
140. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
141. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
142. Agenda for TAG Face-to-Face Meeting, 3-5 March 2009 (Redwood Shores, CA) (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-02-25)
143. Re: Request for Agenda items for TAG Telcon of 18th December 2008 (from connolly@w3.org on 2008-12-15)
144. TAG Telcon agenda fro 8th May 2008: httpredirections-57; tagSoupIntegration-54; passwordsInThClear-52; webApplicationState-60 (from skw@hp.com on 2008-05-07)
145. TAG Weekly Telcon Agenda: 20th March 2008 (from skw@hp.com on 2008-03-19)
146. TAG Telcon Agenda: 13th March 2008: webApplicationState-60; tagSoupIntegration-54; UrnsAndRegistries-50; httpRedirections-57 (from skw@hp.com on 2008-03-12)
147. RE: Getting Trackers attention (was RE: webApplicationState-60 (was RE: issue-60 (webApplicationState-48): Web Application State Management) (from skw@hp.com on 2007-12-17)
148. Re: Getting Trackers attention (was RE: webApplicationState-60 (was RE: issue-60 (webApplicationState-48): Web Application State Management) (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2007-12-14)
149. Re: webApplicationState-60 (was RE: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-48): Web Application State Management) (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2007-12-14)
150. webApplicationState-60 (was RE: ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-48): Web Application State Management) (from skw@hp.com on 2007-12-14)
151. ISSUE-60 (webApplicationState-48): Web Application State Management (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-12-14)

Related notes:

Display change log.