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

Monday, 30 May 2005

• RE: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Sanjiva Weerawarana

Sunday, 29 May 2005

• RE: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Jonathan Marsh
• Re: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Sanjiva Weerawarana

Friday, 27 May 2005

• Re: [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Marc Hadley

Wednesday, 25 May 2005

• Agenda: 2005-06-02 F2F, Berlin, DE Mark Nottingham
• Minutes of the 2005-05-23 teleconference Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 24 May 2005

• [i60] Splitting semantics of namespace across multiple WS-A specs inhibits independent versioning Jonathan Marsh

Monday, 23 May 2005

• Fault notation Jonathan Marsh
• LC77 - A proposal for wording Glen Daniels
• Proposal for issue i017, subissue b (AI from 2005-04-20) Anish Karmarkar
• Partial regrets David Hull
• Re: LC107 Discussion David Hull
• Re: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP Conor P. Cahill
• LC107 Discussion Francisco Curbera

Sunday, 22 May 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-23 Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 19 May 2005

• Re: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP dimitrovi@insession.com
• Re: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP (resend, reference parameters instead of properties) dimitrovi@insession.com
• Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP (resend) Anish Karmarkar

Wednesday, 18 May 2005

• Re: Agenda: 2005-06-02 F2F, Berlin, DE, US [DRAFT] Mark Nottingham
• Agenda: 2005-06-02 F2F, Berlin, DE, US [DRAFT] Mark Nottingham
• RE: LC5 Discussion (source endpoint utility, potential directions) Vikas Deolaliker
• Re: LC5 Discussion (source endpoint utility, potential directions) David Hull
• RE: LC5 Discussion (source endpoint utility, potential directions) Vikas Deolaliker
• RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification Jonathan Marsh
• RE: LC Editorial Comment for WS-Addressing Core Specification Jonathan Marsh
• Editor question on lc64 Marc Hadley
• RE: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
• RE: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
• Re: Question regarding cardinality of [destination] Philippe Le Hegaret
• RE: Question regarding cardinality of [destination] Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)

Tuesday, 17 May 2005

• Re: Question regarding cardinality of [destination] Anish Karmarkar
• Minutes of the 2005-05-16 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Test matrix for reply rules David Hull

Monday, 16 May 2005

• RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-16 Martin Gudgin
• Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Formal objection to the binding of [reference properties] in SOAP Philippe Le Hegaret
• LC5 Discussion Glen Daniels
• LC5 Discussion (source endpoint utility, potential directions) Glen Daniels

Sunday, 15 May 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-16 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 13 May 2005

• Last Call Issues List updated Mark Nottingham
• Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) David Hull
• RE: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Jonathan Marsh

Thursday, 12 May 2005

• Minutes for the 2005-05-09 teleconference Mark Nottingham

Monday, 9 May 2005

• Re: Language for Reference Parameters Marc Hadley

Sunday, 8 May 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-09 Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 7 May 2005

• RE: endpoint terminology confusion Rogers, Tony
• RE: endpoint terminology confusion paul.downey@bt.com

Friday, 6 May 2005

• endpoint terminology confusion Dan Diephouse

Thursday, 5 May 2005

• Re: Mixed notation and indirect terminology for MAPs (SOAP, clarification) Marc Hadley
• Re: [lc34] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, substantive) Marc Hadley

Tuesday, 3 May 2005

• minutes of the 2005-05-02 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: What does core section 3 actually require? David Hull
• Re: What does core section 3 actually require? Mark Nottingham
• What does core section 3 actually require? David Hull

Monday, 2 May 2005

• RE: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Anish Karmarkar
• RE: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) David Hull
• RE: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Jonathan Marsh
• RE: [lc35] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, substantive) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive) Francisco Curbera

Sunday, 1 May 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-05-02 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Missing xml namespace prefix declaration (WSDL, editorial) Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Monday, 30 May 2005 17:48:19 UTC