XML-DEV Mailing List Archive by date - December, 2011

• what's missing in XML? What's coming?
  • From Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> on 1 Jan 2012 04:10:52 -0000
• RE: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 31 Dec 2011 20:50:49 -0000
• RE: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was:Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing webservices]
  • From "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV> on 31 Dec 2011 00:13:01 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 30 Dec 2011 20:11:43 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 30 Dec 2011 20:07:31 -0000
• Re: FW: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versusEvidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services]
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 30 Dec 2011 20:03:22 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services]
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 30 Dec 2011 17:37:27 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services]
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 30 Dec 2011 17:36:29 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com> on 30 Dec 2011 17:07:40 -0000
• Re: FW: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versusEvidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services]
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 30 Dec 2011 15:16:43 -0000
• FW: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 30 Dec 2011 14:56:27 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com> on 30 Dec 2011 14:00:48 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 30 Dec 2011 13:44:44 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From "Tom De Herdt" <tom.deherdt@skynet.be> on 30 Dec 2011 12:04:08 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designingweb services]
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 30 Dec 2011 08:16:50 -0000
• RE: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 30 Dec 2011 02:02:23 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> on 30 Dec 2011 01:41:20 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services]
  • From Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> on 30 Dec 2011 01:34:20 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 30 Dec 2011 01:18:46 -0000
• RE: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 30 Dec 2011 01:13:41 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 29 Dec 2011 23:34:35 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From Greg Hunt <greg@firmansyah.com> on 29 Dec 2011 22:22:34 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services
  • From Michael Sokolov <sokolov@ifactory.com> on 29 Dec 2011 21:43:03 -0000
• Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
  • From David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> on 29 Dec 2011 21:04:35 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 29 Dec 2011 20:21:54 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 29 Dec 2011 20:10:52 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 29 Dec 2011 19:47:20 -0000
• Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was:Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing webservices]
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 29 Dec 2011 19:18:26 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services
  • From David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> on 29 Dec 2011 19:04:16 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services
  • From "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com> on 29 Dec 2011 18:45:15 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 29 Dec 2011 18:23:16 -0000
• Re: Nominations for the best XML markup language of all time
  • From "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> on 29 Dec 2011 12:43:34 -0000
• Nominations for the best XML markup language of all time
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 29 Dec 2011 12:33:01 -0000
• SV: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From Sigfrid Lundberg <slu@kb.dk> on 29 Dec 2011 08:13:23 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 29 Dec 2011 05:45:19 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services
  • From David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> on 28 Dec 2011 22:51:36 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approachesto designing web services
  • From Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> on 28 Dec 2011 18:11:02 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 28 Dec 2011 17:49:35 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 28 Dec 2011 17:35:51 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 28 Dec 2011 17:24:55 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 28 Dec 2011 17:01:38 -0000
• RE: Designing an experiment to gather evidence onapproaches to designing web services
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 28 Dec 2011 14:47:25 -0000
• Re: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 28 Dec 2011 13:56:59 -0000
• Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches todesigning web services
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 28 Dec 2011 13:41:58 -0000
• RE: xml-dev Digest 24 Dec 2011 16:55:59 -0000 Issue 2593
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 25 Dec 2011 01:05:29 -0000
• Re:1
  • From David Carver <d_a_carver@yahoo.com> on 24 Dec 2011 16:55:59 -0000
• Re: Two philosophies of XML usage
  • From "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com> on 22 Dec 2011 17:31:49 -0000
• Re: Two philosophies of XML usage
  • From Tei <oscar.vives@gmail.com> on 22 Dec 2011 17:09:07 -0000
• Re: Two philosophies of XML usage
  • From dvint@dvint.com on 22 Dec 2011 16:21:06 -0000
• Re: Two philosophies of XML usage
  • From Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com> on 22 Dec 2011 16:14:31 -0000
• Two philosophies of XML usage
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 22 Dec 2011 14:19:28 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitablyhave lots of "holes"
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 20 Dec 2011 12:18:21 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably havelots of "holes"
  • From Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> on 20 Dec 2011 02:42:06 -0000
• RE: RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 19 Dec 2011 19:34:09 -0000
• RE: RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From Norm Birkett <Norm.Birkett@reval.com> on 19 Dec 2011 18:58:21 -0000
• RE: RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV> on 19 Dec 2011 18:03:38 -0000
• Re: RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusivelyprocessed by machines?
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 19 Dec 2011 15:20:59 -0000
• Re: RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processedby machines?
  • From Lech Rzedzicki <xchaotic@gmail.com> on 19 Dec 2011 11:52:58 -0000
• RE: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably have lots of "holes"
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 18 Dec 2011 21:07:04 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitablyhave lots of "holes"
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 18 Dec 2011 20:17:30 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably havelots of "holes"
  • From James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> on 18 Dec 2011 19:27:19 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitablyhave lots of "holes"
  • From Michael Sokolov <sokolov@ifactory.com> on 18 Dec 2011 13:02:17 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitablyhave lots of "holes"
  • From Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> on 18 Dec 2011 07:50:37 -0000
• Re: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitablyhave lots of "holes"
  • From Henry Luo <henryluo@candlescript.org> on 18 Dec 2011 06:39:17 -0000
• RE: Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably have lots of "holes"
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 17 Dec 2011 20:16:19 -0000
• Most XML vocabularies are too large and inevitably have lots of"holes"
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 17 Dec 2011 19:50:22 -0000
• RE: RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 17 Dec 2011 16:32:40 -0000
• Re: RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach toXML
  • From =?UTF-8?B?UGlvdHIgQmHFhHNraQ==?= <bansp@o2.pl> on 17 Dec 2011 15:58:46 -0000
• RE: Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 17 Dec 2011 14:04:47 -0000
• Markup Combinators -- A Functional Approach to XML
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 16 Dec 2011 18:59:46 -0000
• Re: Two interesting comments from Michael Kay
  • From Chris Maloney <voldrani@gmail.com> on 15 Dec 2011 21:15:17 -0000
• RE: Two interesting comments from Michael Kay
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 15 Dec 2011 21:02:19 -0000
• Re: Two interesting comments from Michael Kay
  • From Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com> on 15 Dec 2011 20:50:31 -0000
• Re: Two interesting comments from Michael Kay
  • From Chris Maloney <voldrani@gmail.com> on 15 Dec 2011 20:37:49 -0000
• Two interesting comments from Michael Kay
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 15 Dec 2011 19:49:06 -0000
• Re: Is it valid in XSD to have choice where all particlesare optional
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 15 Dec 2011 18:34:34 -0000
• Re: Is it valid in XSD to have choice where all particlesare optional
  • From Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> on 15 Dec 2011 16:32:27 -0000
• Re: Is it valid in XSD to have choice where all particlesare optional
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 15 Dec 2011 15:21:35 -0000
• Is it valid in XSD to have choice where all particles are optional
  • From Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> on 15 Dec 2011 14:56:33 -0000
• Update to xmlsh version 1.1.8
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 14 Dec 2011 16:20:29 -0000
• Re: OASIS catalogs: <system> and <uri> entries
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 13 Dec 2011 20:47:19 -0000
• Re: OASIS catalogs: <system> and <uri> entries
  • From Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> on 13 Dec 2011 19:45:58 -0000
• Re: OASIS catalogs: <system> and <uri> entries
  • From Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> on 13 Dec 2011 19:05:06 -0000
• Re: OASIS catalogs: <system> and <uri> entries
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 13 Dec 2011 18:25:00 -0000
• OASIS catalogs: <system> and <uri> entries
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 13 Dec 2011 17:42:06 -0000
• RE: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV> on 13 Dec 2011 17:00:26 -0000
• RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV> on 12 Dec 2011 18:42:20 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> on 12 Dec 2011 14:06:58 -0000
• RE: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 12 Dec 2011 13:34:12 -0000
• RE: [Summary] Is recursive markup good? bad? supported?not supported?
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 12 Dec 2011 11:42:22 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> on 12 Dec 2011 09:30:54 -0000
• Re: [Summary] Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> on 11 Dec 2011 22:43:40 -0000
• [Summary] Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 11 Dec 2011 22:33:12 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 11 Dec 2011 17:20:43 -0000
• RE: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 11 Dec 2011 17:13:08 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 11 Dec 2011 16:52:54 -0000
• RE: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 11 Dec 2011 15:12:19 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Cecil New <cecil.new@gmail.com> on 11 Dec 2011 12:55:46 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> on 11 Dec 2011 11:51:45 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? notsupported?
  • From Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> on 11 Dec 2011 02:41:25 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Michael Sokolov <sokolov@ifactory.com> on 11 Dec 2011 01:13:05 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Manos Batsis <manos_lists@geekologue.com> on 10 Dec 2011 12:36:08 -0000
• Re: Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 10 Dec 2011 12:14:12 -0000
• Is recursive markup good? bad? supported? not supported?
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 10 Dec 2011 11:53:19 -0000
• Do your XML Schemas or Relax NG schemas have recursive definitions?
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 9 Dec 2011 20:47:19 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 9 Dec 2011 20:14:53 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> on 9 Dec 2011 20:04:09 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> on 9 Dec 2011 19:41:47 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 9 Dec 2011 18:55:15 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 9 Dec 2011 18:30:19 -0000
• Re: Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> on 9 Dec 2011 18:24:55 -0000
• Re: Exploiting XML namespaces formatted as IRIs(Internationalized Resource Identifiers) to perpetrate an IDN homograph attack
  • From Rand McRanderson <therandshow@gmail.com> on 9 Dec 2011 18:20:02 -0000
• Noob: XML validation capabilities beyond schemas
  • From John Christopher <john.christopher1100@yahoo.com> on 9 Dec 2011 18:04:25 -0000
• Re: Exploiting XML namespaces formatted as IRIs (Internationalized Resource Identifiers) to perpetrate an IDN homograph attack
  • From "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> on 9 Dec 2011 17:12:46 -0000
• Exploiting XML namespaces formatted as IRIs (InternationalizedResource Identifiers) to perpetrate an IDN homograph attack
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 9 Dec 2011 16:24:55 -0000
• RE: Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor fortaxonomies with support for nesting /recursion
  • From Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com> on 7 Dec 2011 12:05:58 -0000
• RE: Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor fortaxonomies with support for nesting /recursion
  • From Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl> on 7 Dec 2011 10:12:59 -0000
• Re: Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor for taxonomieswith support for nesting /recursion
  • From Alain Couthures <alain.couthures@agencexml.com> on 6 Dec 2011 21:40:38 -0000
• RE: Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor fortaxonomies with support for nesting /recursion
  • From Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl> on 6 Dec 2011 19:59:10 -0000
• Re: Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor for taxonomieswith support for nesting /recursion
  • From George Cristian Bina <george@oxygenxml.com> on 6 Dec 2011 19:58:08 -0000
• Lightweight browser-based XML / Form editor for taxonomies withsupport for nesting /recursion
  • From Lech Rzedzicki <xchaotic@gmail.com> on 6 Dec 2011 16:53:09 -0000
• RE: Ways of breaking out of normal interpretation andmeaning
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 6 Dec 2011 13:17:28 -0000
• Re: business card
  • From Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@gmail.com> on 6 Dec 2011 10:41:28 -0000
• RE: business card
  • From Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl> on 6 Dec 2011 06:54:53 -0000
• Re: Ways of breaking out of normal interpretation and meaning
  • From Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> on 5 Dec 2011 23:57:45 -0000
• Re: business card
  • From Chris Maloney <voldrani@gmail.com> on 5 Dec 2011 22:16:08 -0000
• Re: business card
  • From ian.graham@utoronto.ca on 5 Dec 2011 21:29:05 -0000
• Re: business card
  • From Ivan Pedruzzi <ivanpedruzzi@gmail.com> on 5 Dec 2011 21:04:54 -0000
• Re: business card
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 5 Dec 2011 20:57:20 -0000
• RE: business card
  • From Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl> on 5 Dec 2011 12:18:13 -0000
• business card
  • From Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> on 5 Dec 2011 12:01:00 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From Jim Melton <jim.melton@oracle.com> on 5 Dec 2011 01:17:31 -0000
• RE: Ways of breaking out of normal interpretation andmeaning
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 4 Dec 2011 20:37:13 -0000
• Re: Ways of breaking out of normal interpretation andmeaning
  • From John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> on 4 Dec 2011 17:33:38 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed bymachines?
  • From Michael Sokolov <sokolov@ifactory.com> on 4 Dec 2011 14:40:48 -0000
• Ways of breaking out of normal interpretation and meaning
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 4 Dec 2011 13:40:02 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed bymachines?
  • From Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> on 4 Dec 2011 12:43:12 -0000
• RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net> on 3 Dec 2011 21:38:07 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed bymachines?
  • From Nico van de Water <nicovdwater@gmx.de> on 3 Dec 2011 16:42:24 -0000
• RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From "Toby Considine" <Toby.Considine@gmail.com> on 3 Dec 2011 15:47:05 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed bymachines?
  • From cbullard@hiwaay.net on 3 Dec 2011 15:29:48 -0000
• RE: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> on 3 Dec 2011 15:20:02 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed bymachines?
  • From Michael Sokolov <sokolov@ifactory.com> on 3 Dec 2011 15:13:40 -0000
• Re: Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe@gmail.com> on 3 Dec 2011 14:53:43 -0000
• Percentage of XML documents exclusively processed by machines?
  • From "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> on 3 Dec 2011 13:13:31 -0000