William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Sun Jul 27 06:33:31 2008
New Revision: 680102
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=680102&view=rev
Log:
Fix RDF as per report on users list
This is now fixed but the data is horribly out of date? Doe
Mark Thomas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Sun Jul 27 06:33:31 2008
New Revision: 680102
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=680102&view=rev
Log:
Fix RDF as per report on users list
This is now fixed but the data is horribly out of date? Does anyone care
about this fil
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Sun Jul 27 06:33:31 2008
New Revision: 680102
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=680102&view=rev
Log:
Fix RDF as per report on users list
This is now fixed but the data is horribly out of date? Doe
Mark Thomas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Sun Jul 27 06:33:31 2008
New Revision: 680102
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=680102&view=rev
Log:
Fix RDF as per report on users list
This is now fixed but the data is horribly out of date? Does anyone care
about this fil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: markt
Date: Sun Jul 27 06:33:31 2008
New Revision: 680102
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=680102&view=rev
Log:
Fix RDF as per report on users list
This is now fixed but the data is horribly out of date? Does anyone care
about this file? If not, better to
