TC ArchivesMailing list preservation

Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

xml-dev · February 2005 · 62 messages · back to month

# Subject From Date
00113 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Bill de hÓra 2005-02-03 12:09
00084 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Miles Sabin 2005-02-03 22:31
00039 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rick Marshall 2005-02-03 22:45
00049 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Michael Kay 2005-02-03 23:26
00040 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rick Marshall 2005-02-03 23:50
00093 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Bob Foster 2005-02-04 00:48
00114 xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-04 03:13
00070 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-04 05:12
00080 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Elliotte Harold 2005-02-04 14:05
00050 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-04 15:18
00059 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Liam Quin 2005-02-04 15:48
00077 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rich Salz 2005-02-04 15:54
00076 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-04 15:56
00061 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Carlisle 2005-02-04 15:59
00082 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-04 16:06
00123 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Toni Uusitalo 2005-02-04 16:19
00121 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Karl Waclawek 2005-02-04 16:35
00034 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Toni Uusitalo 2005-02-04 17:10
00043 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-04 17:25
00099 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Toni Uusitalo 2005-02-04 17:33
00091 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robin Berjon 2005-02-04 17:39
00089 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Liam Quin 2005-02-04 18:23
00100 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Toni Uusitalo 2005-02-04 20:20
00042 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Amelia A Lewis 2005-02-04 20:48
00036 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Jeff Rafter 2005-02-04 20:57
00044 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robert Koberg 2005-02-04 21:04
00031 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robin Berjon 2005-02-04 21:07
00048 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Peter Hunsberger 2005-02-04 21:17
00029 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Toni Uusitalo 2005-02-04 21:24
00087 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robert Koberg 2005-02-04 21:29
00102 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Peter Hunsberger 2005-02-04 21:36
00103 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robert Koberg 2005-02-04 21:47
00086 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Amelia A Lewis 2005-02-04 21:49
00033 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Peter Hunsberger 2005-02-04 21:53
00035 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robert Koberg 2005-02-04 22:04
00041 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Amelia A Lewis 2005-02-04 22:23
00111 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Christian Nentwich 2005-02-04 22:31
00118 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Peter Hunsberger 2005-02-04 22:38
00072 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rick Marshall 2005-02-04 22:56
00119 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rick Marshall 2005-02-04 23:13
00109 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Bob Foster 2005-02-04 23:16
00106 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Robert Koberg 2005-02-05 00:02
00064 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Elliotte Harold 2005-02-05 01:44
00073 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Rich Salz 2005-02-05 01:48
00120 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Elliotte Harold 2005-02-05 01:50
00063 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Michael Kay 2005-02-05 10:20
00104 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Michael Kay 2005-02-05 10:36
00045 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-05 14:03
00108 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-05 19:09
00117 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? David Lyon 2005-02-05 20:51
00183 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Derek Denny-Brown 2005-02-07 00:00
00168 RE: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? [email protected] 2005-02-07 01:14
00226 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Kurt Cagle 2005-02-07 06:19
00215 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Amelia A Lewis 2005-02-07 07:47
00135 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? sterling 2005-02-08 09:41
00160 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-08 18:43
00185 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-08 18:56
00132 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-08 18:58
00188 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Bob Foster 2005-02-08 19:52
00201 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Norman Walsh 2005-02-08 20:22
00198 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Bob Foster 2005-02-08 22:12
00238 Re: [xml-dev] xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all? Adam Souzis 2005-02-08 23:15