Mailing-lists Search service

1. Re: Draft Agenda of 29 March 2005 TAG teleconference (score: 24) (6,855 bytes)
Author: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:15:28 -0600 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <20050325165420.42e94c61.Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr> References: 1

That list is really handy, but the way we discussed it last time was kinda awkward. It was exactly according to the BulkActionReview AntiPattern. http://esw.w3.org/topic/BulkActionReview Please can e

2. Request for extension of the XRI review period (score: 182) (2,490 bytes)
Author: Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:06:47 +0200 List: Public/www-tag

3. RE: Request for extension of the XRI review period (score: 182) (4,030 bytes)
Author: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>, Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:24:00 -0800 List: Public/www-tag

4. RE: Request for extension of the XRI review period (score: 182) (3,284 bytes)
Author: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>, Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 17:30:01 -0700 List: Public/www-tag

5. Re: Request for extension of the XRI review period (score: 182) (4,237 bytes)
Author: Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 09:46:16 +0200 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <57901251A4FD0B4882D999F9FA2FE5A103B55ABF@SW720EX017.visa.com> References: 1

6. minutes TAG 5 Apr for review (score: 35) (21,006 bytes)
Author: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:20:12 -0500 List: Public/www-tag

TAG Weekly Teleconference 5 Apr 2005 Attendees Present: DanC, Norm, noah, HT, TimBL, VincentQ, Dave_Orchard Regrets: RoyF Chair: VincentQ Scribe: DanC Contents 1. Roll call, agenda review 2. TAG Summ

7. Re: Agenda of 12 April TAG teleconference (score: 35) (3,476 bytes)
Author: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:05:07 -0500 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <20050411192240.4f3c3419.Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr> References: 1

[...] I did some spell checking and added a link to webarch, but I didn't make an announcement. http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/em27 $Revision: 1.5 $ of $Date: 2005/04/04 19:11:09 $ I'm happy to continue

8. Links to emails on URIs changing (score: 13) (2,134 bytes)
Author: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:11:00 -0400 List: Public/www-tag

Dave, On today's TAG call, you mentioned having reviewed some old emails from Roy and perhaps others on the issue of changing URIs, or being tempted to change URIs, in various circumstances. This was

9. FW: [xri] Clarifications (score: 182) (14,881 bytes)
Author: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>, Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:31:19 -0700 List: Public/www-tag

10. Implementing 'new' schemes using HTTP and DNS (score: 227) (10,832 bytes)
Author: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:31:08 +0100 List: Public/www-tag

During the TAG's consideration of the XRI proposals [1] a thread on the TAG's private mailing list which started on an administrative topic strayed into technical discussion. In order to include a pu

11. Comments for XRI should go to web form (score: 182) (4,732 bytes)
Author: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>, Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:52:13 -0700 List: Public/www-tag

12. Re: Comments for XRI should go to web form (score: 227) (2,843 bytes)
Author: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:10:25 +0100 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <57901251A4FD0B4882D999F9FA2FE5A103D99726@SW720EX017.visa.com> References: 1

Could you please confirm that all comments submitted in this way end up archived at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/ Thanks, ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group,

13. RE: Comments for XRI should go to web form (score: 182) (3,453 bytes)
Author: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>, Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:38:28 -0700 List: Public/www-tag

14. XRI 2.0 Review by the W3C TAG (score: 182) (3,838 bytes)
Author: Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:52:41 +0200 List: Public/www-tag

15. Re: XRI 2.0 Review by the W3C TAG - security concern? (score: 182) (5,633 bytes)
Author: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 18:58:51 +0100 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <20050429105241.69c32c00.Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>

16. Re: XRI 2.0 Review by the W3C TAG - security concern? (score: 182) (2,202 bytes)
Author: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 12:08:42 -0700 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20050505184801.01e76610@127.0.0.1> References: 1

No, that issue is just simple bone-headed deployment in their webspace of an ISAPI DLL that accepts commands as query data. Someone is exploiting that huge security hole to create a cross-site script

17. RE: XRI 2.0 Review by the W3C TAG - security concern? (score: 182) (6,649 bytes)
Author: "Rice, Ed (HP.com)" <ed.rice@hp.com>, Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:50:57 -0700 List: Public/www-tag

18. [Dan Connolly] XRIs are not designed to be URIs [Fwd: Re:xri: registration with IETF/IANA?] (score: 566) (14,005 bytes)
Author: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 20:09:36 +0100 List: Public/www-tag

X-From-Line: tag-request@frink.w3.org Return-Path: <tag-request@frink.w3.org> Received: from nutty.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.216.3] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-6.2.0) for ht@localhost (single-drop)

19. Re: XRIs *are* intended to be used where URIs are used (score: 13) (2,518 bytes)
Author: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 10:01:26 +0100 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <57901251A4FD0B4882D999F9FA2FE5A103F6E18E@SW720EX017.visa.com> References: 1

Thanks for clarifying. In that case (you really are planning to register a new URI scheme), the TAG review [1] says "Please reconsider". Instead, the TAG strongly recommends that you implement XRI fu

20. Re: XRIs *are* intended to be used where URIs are used (score: 35) (3,715 bytes)
Author: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 02:15:35 +0200 List: Public/www-tag
In-Reply-To: <57901251A4FD0B4882D999F9FA2FE5A103F6EC35@SW720EX017.visa.com> References: 1

Some people consider 'http' URLs to "locate" ("identify" the "location") of "resources" and some other people consider 'http' URLs to "identify" "resources". The latter point of view is that what com