TAG Issues List
Concerning view
- charmodReview-17 :
Request to review "Character Model for the
Web" Last Call document
[closed]
- whenToUseGet-7 :
(1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms
(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?
GET plus a body?)
[open]
- nsMediaType-3 :
Relationship between media types and namespaces?
[closed]
- xmlSW-10 :
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs +
namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
[closed]
- abstractComponentRefs-37 :
Definition of abstract components with namespace names
and frag ids
[open]
- qnameAsId-18 :
Is it ok to use Qnames as Identifiers? [closed]
- URNsAndRegistries-50 :
URIs, URNs, "location independent" naming systems and associated registries for naming on the Web [open]
- HTTPSubstrate-16 :
Should HTTP be used as a substrate protocol? Does W3C
agree with RFC 3205?
[open]
- soapRPCURI-11 :
What is the appropriate relationship between SOAP RPC
and the Web's reliance on URIs?
[closed]
- deepLinking-25 :
What to say in defense of principle that deep linking is
not an illegal act?
[closed]
- contentTypeOverride-24 :
Can a specification include rules for overriding HTTP
content type parameters?
[closed]
- uncefactLiaison-5 :
Invitation to create liaison with UN/CEFACT ebTWG
Architecture Group
[closed]
- errorHandling-20 :
What should specifications say about error handling?
[closed]
- xmlSW-10 :
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs +
namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
[closed]
- xformsReview-4 :
Request to review XForms Last Call document [closed]
- whenToUseGet-7 :
(1) GET should be encouraged, not deprecated, in XForms
(2) How to handle safe queries (New POST-like method?
GET plus a body?)
[open]
- xmlSW-10 :
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs +
namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
[closed]
- xmlAsText-12 :
Do proposed changes to XML 1.1 ignore Unicode
constraints?
[closed]
- xml11Names-46 :
Impact of changes to XML 1.1 on other XML Specifications
[open]
- contentPresentation-26 :
Separation of semantic and presentational markup, to the
extent possible, is architecturally sound.
[open]
- xmlSW-10 :
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs +
namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
[closed]
- xmlSW-10 :
Should next version of XML be XML 1.0 - DTDs +
namespaces + xml:base + the infoset?
[closed]
- abstractComponentRefs-37 :
Definition of abstract components with namespace names
and frag ids
[open]
- uncefactLiaison-5 :
Invitation to create liaison with UN/CEFACT ebTWG
Architecture Group
[closed]
Maintained by W3C Technical Architecture Group.Last update: $Date: 2008/10/10 09:52:43 $
This page was generated as part of the
Extensible Issue
Tracking System (ExIT)
Copyright ©
2003, 2004
W3C® (MIT, ERCIM,
Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document
use and software licensing
rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with
our public and
Member
privacy statements.