matty | 7 Dec 18:29 1998
Picon

SNN KURZINFO fuer Abonnenten


Diese Nachricht wird automatisch und AUSSCHLIESSLICH an 
unsere Abonnenten versandt.  Hinweise zur Abbestellung 
finden Sie am Ende dieser Seite.

SNN KURZINFO fuer Abonnenten  -  
11. November 1998

Alle Preisangaben in US-Dollar bei Boersenschluss am 
11. November 1998

Die letzten beiden von SNN vorgestellten Werte haben sich 
sehr gut entwickelt, und wir bringen Ihnen heute ein kurzes 
Update.

NuOncology Labs Inc. (NLAB - OTC BB) ist in den vergangenen 
drei Wochen nach oben geklettert und erreichte von einem Stand 
von ca. $ 4,25 am 19. Oktober heute einen neuen Hoechstkurs 
von $ 7,875 bei gutem Umsatz. Jetzt, wo Investoren NLAB langsam 
die Aufmerksamkeit schenken, die diese Aktie unserer Meinung 
nach verdient, sollte der Aufwaertstrend anhalten.
Wir erwarten, Ihnen bald Neues von diesem Unternehmen berichten 
zu koennen. Weitere Informationen ueber NuOncology Labs Inc. 
finden Sie unter http://206.132.179.167/disclaimer98/nulab-de.html

Eine weitere Gesellschaft, die im SNN kuerzlich unter die Lupe 
genommen wurde, US Digital Communications (USDI - OTC BB), 
bewegte sich bei guten Umsaetzen von einem Stand von $4,00 
am Tage, als SNN ueber dieses Unternehmen berichtete (26. Oktober) 
auf heute $ 5,28. Es besteht weiterhin lebhaftes Interesse an 
(Continue reading)

Ted Hardie | 1 Dec 01:53 1998

Agenda for CONNEG

Agenda for CONNEG, currently scheduled for Thursday, December 10, 1998
from 15:30 to 17:30.

Agenda Bashing:  
10 minutes.

Last call updates to draft-ietf-conneg-media-features-02.txt:	
15 minutes.

Status updates on related work in the FAX working group, especially
draft-ietf-fax-feature-schema-03.txt:
15 minutes.

Status updates on related work by W3C and XPASC, especially in
reference to draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-00.txt:
15 minutes.

Discussion of set notation and q-values in draft-ietf-conneg-syntax-03.txt:
30 minutes.

Discussion of other issues in draft-ietf-conneg-syntax-03.txt:
30 minutes.

Milestone udpates:
5 minutes.

Graham Klyne | 1 Dec 03:23 1998

Feature registration draft

I note that the table of contents refers to the "URL tree", but the actual
body section refers to "URI tree".

I think it should be the "URI tree".

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK <at> ACM.ORG)

Graham Klyne | 1 Dec 03:23 1998

Re: Some editorial matters for -syntax-

Ted,

Thanks for your comments.

I'll respond below to a selection of those comments;  no comment means that
I accept your suggestion without reservation.

At 15:45 30/11/98 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
[...]
>In 3.5.1, the description of substring matching as "not...relevant to
>feature set selection" should probably be simplified to "Substring
>matching (for tokens?) is excluded from these proposals"; there are
>areas like hierarchical types where it might be relevant, but we don't
>want to deal with them--so let's say that instead.

This paragraph was intended as an explanation of the first bullet point.
I'm not sure that your proposal says anything that isn't already stated
there.  I would be happy to delete that paragraph.

>I think the discussion of the consequences "implied universal
>quantification" so early is confusing in 3.5.1, so I would shorten
>that paragraph to something which says:
>
>"Within the semantic framework described by this document,
>Boolean-valued features can be used where presence tests would be used
>by some directory selection mechanisms."

Or:
 "Within the semantic framework described by this document,
  Boolean-valued feature tests can be used where presence tests would
(Continue reading)

Ted Hardie | 1 Dec 19:28 1998

Re: Some editorial matters for -syntax-

Graham,
	Thanks for your quick response.  I've made some additional
comments in the text below.

> [...]
> >In 3.5.1, the description of substring matching as "not...relevant to
> >feature set selection" should probably be simplified to "Substring
> >matching (for tokens?) is excluded from these proposals"; there are
> >areas like hierarchical types where it might be relevant, but we don't
> >want to deal with them--so let's say that instead.
> 
> This paragraph was intended as an explanation of the first bullet point.
> I'm not sure that your proposal says anything that isn't already stated
> there.  I would be happy to delete that paragraph.

Deleting it seems fine.

[...]

> Or:
>  "Within the semantic framework described by this document,
>   Boolean-valued feature tests can be used where presence tests would
>   be used in a directory search filter."

This is much better than my text, thanks.

> >In 3.6, I would eliminate the phrase "suggesting an "ideal" option
> >that is equally or more preferred than any other"; the direction of
> >the 0 to 1 range has already been given, and this seems to muddy the
> >waters from that description.
(Continue reading)

Graham Klyne | 1 Dec 20:01 1998

Re: Some editorial matters for -syntax-

At 10:28 01/12/98 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote:
[...]
>> >In 3.6, I would eliminate the phrase "suggesting an "ideal" option
>> >that is equally or more preferred than any other"; the direction of
>> >the 0 to 1 range has already been given, and this seems to muddy the
>> >waters from that description.
>> 
>> The intent was to clarify the consequence of omitting ;q=x.  If it doesn't
>> do that then it should go.
>
>Sorry, I meant that the first part of the sentence should stay 
>(indicating that the omitting ;q=x means  ;q=1), but that the
>ending phrase "suggesting an ...." should go.    I think the
>first part does illustrate the consequence of omitting ;q=x
>and should be retained.

No, it's me who's not being clear here -- that's what I thought you meant.

My point here was that the extra clause was to underline the consequence of
defaulting to ";q=1".   If it doesn't do that then I agree it should go.  I
was just resisting a little because I felt that the point being made was
legitimate, if structly redundant.

To summarize, the present text is:

  In the absence of any explicitly applied quality value, a value of
  "1" is assumed, suggesting an "ideal" option that is equally or
  more preferred than any other.

I accept your observation that the phrasing, as given, is not crystal
(Continue reading)

Johan Hjelm | 4 Dec 03:00 1998
Picon

CC/PP now a W3C Note

The Composite Capabilities/Preference Profiles (CC/PP) framework is now a
W3C Note. It has improved substantially from the first draft version,
thanks to comments from several sources, among them this list. You can find
it at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CCPP. 
And by the way, we apprieciate comments on it still.

Johan Hjelm
************************************************************
                     Johan HJELM
            Ericsson RCUR T/K & Cyberlab NY 
         Currently visiting engineer at the W3C
             The World Wide Web Consortium
                     hjelm <at> w3.org
   http://www.w3.org/People/W3Cpeople.html#Hjelm
    Fax +1-617-258 5999, Phone +1-617-263-9630
   MIT/LCS, 545 Tech. Sq. Cambridge MA 02139 USA 
        opinions are personal, always my own, 
  and not necessarily those of Ericsson or the W3C. 
============================================================

eclipse | 10 Dec 06:58 1998

Will You Be Safely Covered For Eclipse 1999

ECLIPSE SHADES(tm)-SAFE SOLAR VIEWERS

One of the great celestial events of the year will take place on Wednesday
August 11, 1999. This will be the last total solar eclipse of the 20th
century. This fantastic total solar eclipse will be visible to millions of
people from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Hungary,
Yugoslavia and Romania. The sun's shadow crosses the Black Sea into Turkey,
Syria and Iraq, Finally arriving in India, the last nation in its path.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE PREPARED TO SAFELY VIEW THIS ONCE IN A LIFETIME EVENT!

View this spectacular total solar eclipse with Eclipse Shades(tm) Safe Solar
Viewers from Rainbow Symphony, Inc. ABSOLUTELY SAFE FOR DIRECT SOLAR
VIEWING, Eclipse Shades(tm) provide the ultimate in protection from harmful
Solar Radiation. With lenses made of Optical Grade, Neutral Density 5,
Double Aluminized 2 mil Mylar, Eclipse Shades(tm) filter out 100% of harmful
Ultra-Violet, 100% of harmful infrared, and 99.999% of intense Visible
Light, giving a cool clear blue image of the Sun.

Our Eclipse Shades Plus(tm) lenses are made of our exclusive Black Polymer
Material with the integral filter medium distributed throughout the lens.
These premium filters are scratch resistant, offer the same superior safety
features and create a sharper orange image of the sun.

CUSTOM IMPRINTING!
Custom Imprinted Eclipse Shades(tm) are a great way to promote any business,
planetarium, museum, school or astronomy clubs. Eclipse Shades(tm)are the
perfect product for Fund Raising and special Corporate Promotions for
Eclipse99.

(Continue reading)

Ted Hardie | 11 Dec 00:53 1998

Re: Fax WG Summary

CONNEG Meeting, December 10, 1998

	The group discussed draft-ietf-conneg-syntax-03.txt and agreed
that it could be put into working group last call after the
incorporation of the edits recently discussed on the mailing list.
The group also approved a minimum set of values for the proposed
color: tag, which will be incorporated into a new revision of
draft-ietf-media-features for the IESG's review.  After the syntax
document is sent to last call, we hope to close out all three
documents,in time for the January 24th ITU deadline. The group
discussed further cooporation with the W3C's CCPP group, and agreed
that the current draft will be the basis of future disucssion, to be
lead by Franklin Reynolds and Graham Klyne.  A tentative author was
also identified for a future draft on the question of registered
feature sets.

----

Note:  "tentative author" is not a typo.

		best regards,
				Ted Hardie

Internet-Drafts | 22 Dec 22:31 1998
Picon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Content Negotiation Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: W3C Composite Capability/Preference Profiles
	Author(s)	: G. Klyne
	Filename	: draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-01.txt
	Pages		: 24
	Date		: 16-Dec-98
	
This document suggests some possible areas for extending the IETF
  'conneg' working group's capability description framework,
  described in [2,3,4].  The suggested areas for extension have been
  motivated by WWW Consortium (W3C) work on Composite
  Capability/Preference Profiles (CCPP) [5] that parallels some
  aspects of IETF 'conneg' work.

  It is presented as a discussion document, with a view to maybe
  integrating some of these ideas into ongoing 'conneg' work.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-conneg-W3C-ccpp-01.txt".

Internet-Drafts directories are located at:

	Africa:	ftp.is.co.za
(Continue reading)


Gmane