public-ws-addressing@w3.org from June 2005 by date

Wednesday, 29 June 2005

• [LC107]: WS Description WG comments on WS-A (editorial) Jonathan Marsh

Tuesday, 28 June 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-06-27 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• RE: Issue LC90 Rogers, Tony
• Re: Issue LC90 Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Issue LC90 Rogers, Tony

Monday, 27 June 2005

• Re: Issue LC90 David Hull
• RE: Issue LC90 Abbie Barbir
• Re: Issue LC90 Christopher B Ferris
• Re: Issue LC90 David Hull
• RE: LC68 - Use-cases Glen Daniels
• Re: Issue LC90 Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue LC90 Tom Rutt
• Re: Issue LC90 David Hull
• Re: Issue LC90 Francisco Curbera
• Re: Issue LC90 David Hull
• Re: Issue LC90 Francisco Curbera
• Re: LC68 - Use-cases Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Issue LC90 David Hull
• Re: Issue LC90 Francisco Curbera
• LC103 Anish Karmarkar
• Issue LC90 Francisco Curbera
• Proposal for i050 : introduction of EPR to indicate 'noReply' Katy Warr
• LC68 - Use-cases Glen Daniels

Saturday, 25 June 2005

• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-06-27 David Hull
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-06-27 Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 22 June 2005

• RE: Reference Parameters resolution Springer, Ian P.

Thursday, 23 June 2005

• RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs David Orchard
• Re: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs Marc Hadley

Wednesday, 22 June 2005

• Re: Reference Parameters resolution Marc Hadley
• RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs David Orchard

Friday, 17 June 2005

• Reference Parameters resolution Eran Chinthaka

Wednesday, 22 June 2005

• RE: Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs Rogers, Tony

Tuesday, 21 June 2005

• Self-describing Messages wrt MEPs David Orchard
• Re: Requirements for one-way MEP Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Requirements for one-way MEP Anish Karmarkar
• Minutes of the 2005-06-20 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Requirements for one-way MEP Mark Nottingham
• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Mark Little
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Mark Little

Monday, 20 June 2005

• In the spirit of real-time editing David Hull
• Proposal for lc87 and lc55 Marc Hadley
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? David Hull
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-06-20 David Hull
• Regrets for 6/20 Bergersen, Rebecca

Friday, 17 June 2005

• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Jeff Mischkinsky

Sunday, 19 June 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-06-20 Mark Nottingham
• New text for sections 3.1 and 3.3 [lc84] Mark Nottingham

Friday, 17 June 2005

• RE: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Jim Webber

Thursday, 16 June 2005

• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Mark Little
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Tom Rutt
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Mark Little
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Rich Salz
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Mark Little
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Mark Little
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Conor P. Cahill
• NEW DEADLINE: Third European Conference on Web Services - ECOWS 2005 Welf Löwe
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Conor P. Cahill

Wednesday, 15 June 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-06-13 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88 paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Email glitch Bob Freund

Tuesday, 14 June 2005

• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Tom Rutt
• Email glitch David Hull
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? David Hull
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? David Hull
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? David Hull
• RE: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities? David Hull
• RE: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Jonathan Marsh
• RE: How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities? Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 David Hull
• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 David Hull
• Re: content of fault detail Marc Hadley
• Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Marc Hadley
• Re: content of fault detail Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88 Rogers, Tony
• RE: How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities? Rogers, Tony

Monday, 13 June 2005

• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Tom Rutt
• Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Tom Rutt
• RE: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? Yalcinalp, Umit
• Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages? David Hull
• Proposal for lc75/lc88 Mark Nottingham
• How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities? David Hull
• Re: content of fault detail Marc Hadley
• Re: wsa:FaultTo unusable for SOAP mustUnderstand faults Anish Karmarkar
• Re: content of fault detail Anish Karmarkar
• Message ID use cases: David Hull
• Re: content of fault detail Jacek Kopecky

Sunday, 12 June 2005

• Regrets for WS-A telcon 2005-06-13 Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Minutes of the Berlin F2F Mark Nottingham
• Minutes of the Berlin F2F Mark Nottingham
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-06-13 Mark Nottingham
• Re: content of fault detail Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 9 June 2005

• RE: wsa:FaultTo unusable for SOAP mustUnderstand faults paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: wsa:FaultTo unusable for SOAP mustUnderstand faults Hugo Haas
• RE: wsa:FaultTo unusable for SOAP mustUnderstand faults Rogers, Tony
• Re: wsa:FaultTo unusable for SOAP mustUnderstand faults Hugo Haas

Wednesday, 8 June 2005

• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Robert Freund
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) David Hull
• Re: [soapbuilders] current best practice for using WS-Addressing in WSDL 1.1? Aleksander Slominski
• RE: [soapbuilders] current best practice for using WS-Addressing in WSDL 1.1? paul.downey@bt.com
• current best practice for using WS-Addressing in WSDL 1.1? Aleksander Slominski
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Doug Davis
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Robert Freund

Tuesday, 7 June 2005

• 2nd CFP: European Conference on Web Services (ECOWS 2005) J.P. Martin-Flatin
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) paul.downey@bt.com

Monday, 6 June 2005

• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Rich Salz
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Mark Little
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Savas Parastatidis
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Rich Salz
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Rich Salz
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Tom Rutt
• Re: on LC75 Rich Salz
• Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language Tom Rutt
• RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction) Robert Freund
• Another go at lc75 and lc88 language Robert Freund

Sunday, 5 June 2005

• Re: on LC75 Tom Rutt
• Re: on LC75 Tom Rutt
• Re: on LC75 Tom Rutt

Saturday, 4 June 2005

• Re: on LC75 Rich Salz
• Re: on LC75 Marc Hadley
• on LC75 Tom Rutt

Friday, 3 June 2005

• Re: content of fault detail Jacek Kopecky

Thursday, 2 June 2005

• LC72 action item Anish Karmarkar
• AI: Faults/error conditions David Hull
• Proposal for closing issue lc103 Marc Hadley
• Re: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Francisco Curbera

Last message date: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 19:25:27 UTC