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

Monday, 31 October 2005

• Meaningful EPR extensions for test 3 -- Action Item Anish Karmarkar
• RE: SOAP Binding and SOAPAction in SOAP 1.1 -- editorial issue Jonathan Marsh
• Issues 56, 57 ed clarification Marc Hadley

Sunday, 30 October 2005

• Potential Removal of wsa:From Kliewer, Greg

Saturday, 29 October 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-10-31 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 28 October 2005

• Regrets 10/31 - Traveling Bob Freund-Hitachi
• Regrets for 10/31 Mark Peel
• Regrets 10/31 Jonathan Marsh

Thursday, 27 October 2005

• Re: SOAP Binding and SOAPAction in SOAP 1.1 -- editorial issue Anish Karmarkar
• RE: SOAP Binding and SOAPAction in SOAP 1.1 -- editorial issue Springer, Ian P.
• SOAP Binding and SOAPAction in SOAP 1.1 -- editorial issue Anish Karmarkar

Wednesday, 26 October 2005

• RE: Random comments on testing paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: General testing question paul.downey@bt.com
• Review of WS-I18N draft Rogers, Tony

Tuesday, 25 October 2005

• cr9: wsa:Action for undefined faults Jonathan Marsh
• Dates for January F2F? Bergersen, Rebecca

Monday, 24 October 2005

• Agenda: 2005-11-07 F2F, Tokyo JP [DRAFT] Mark Nottingham
• General testing question David Hull
• Minutes of the 2005-10-24 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Action item 2005-09-30 Yalcinalp, Umit
• Random comments on testing David Hull

Sunday, 23 October 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-10-24 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 21 October 2005

• RE: Comments on CR test cases paul.downey@bt.com

Thursday, 20 October 2005

• RE: Comments on CR test cases paul.downey@bt.com
• WS-Addressing CR issue #4 is resolved Yalcinalp, Umit

Wednesday, 19 October 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-10-17 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Comments on CR test cases Arun Gupta
• RE: Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and SOAPAction Katy Warr

Tuesday, 18 October 2005

• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Glen Daniels
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill

Monday, 17 October 2005

• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Christopher B Ferris
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and SOAPAction paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Jonathan Marsh
• RE: CR Test Cases paul.downey@bt.com
• Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and SOAPAction Katy Warr
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR David Hull
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Nottingham
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Prasad Yendluri
• RE: CR Test Cases paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR John Kemp
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Rich Salz
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Rich Salz
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR David Orchard
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Martin Gudgin
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Timo Skytta
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR John Kemp
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Martin Gudgin
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR John Kemp
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Martin Gudgin
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Vikas Deolaliker
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Rogers, Tony
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill

Sunday, 16 October 2005

• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Rogers, Tony
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• RE: Multiple Addresses in an EPR David Orchard
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR John Kemp
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR John Kemp
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Little

Saturday, 15 October 2005

• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Multiple Addresses in an EPR Mark Nottingham
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-10-18 [date correction] Mark Nottingham
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-10-18 Mark Nottingham
• Multiple Addresses in an EPR Conor P. Cahill

Friday, 14 October 2005

• RE: wsa:Action for undefined faults Jonathan Marsh
• RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Now that the train has left the station ... Jonathan Marsh
• Proposed resolution to cr8 Marc Hadley
• WSDL Binding: Example 4-5 Invalid closing tag David Illsley
• Minutes of the 2005-10-10 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F Mark Nottingham
• Re: Editorial Issue: SOAPAction Anish Karmarkar
• FYI: Formalizing IETF Interoperability Reporting Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 13 October 2005

• RE: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F Yalcinalp, Umit

Wednesday, 12 October 2005

• Re: Now that the train has left the station ... David Hull
• Re: Now that the train has left the station ... Mark Nottingham
• Re: Now that the train has left the station ... Anish Karmarkar

Tuesday, 11 October 2005

• Now that the train has left the station ... David Hull
• RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Springer, Ian P.
• Re: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Anish Karmarkar
• Re: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Katy Warr

Monday, 10 October 2005

• Regrets for Today (10/10) Mike Vernal
• Re: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Anish Karmarkar
• Re: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Anish Karmarkar
• RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Springer, Ian P.
• Re: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Anish Karmarkar
• RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Katy Warr
• Regrets for 10/10 Francisco Curbera
• RE: New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? it Jonathan Marsh
• RE: NEW ISSUE: When, if ever, MUST action be used for dispatch? Jonathan Marsh
• RE: New Issue: Migration of @Action from WS-A 200408 to WS-A 1.0 [i064] Jonathan Marsh
• New Issue: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Katy Warr
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Mark Little
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Pete Hendry
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them David Hull

Saturday, 8 October 2005

• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Conor P. Cahill
• Re: What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Pete Hendry
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Pete Hendry
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-10-10 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 7 October 2005

• CR Test Cases Arun Gupta
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them David Hull
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them Marc Hadley
• Re: i061 resolution David Hull
• Re: Reference Parameters - using them David Hull

Thursday, 6 October 2005

• Typo in WSDL binding spec Jonathan Marsh
• Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 5 October 2005

• FW: Comments from WS-A on WSDL 2.0 documents Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Comments from WS-A on WSDL 2.0 documents Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Comments on WSDL SOAP Binding Extension section of Adjuncts from WS-Addressing WG Jonathan Marsh
• RE: LC ISSUE from WSA: Clarify applicability of wsdx:Interface and wsdx:Binding Jonathan Marsh
• Source Endpoint Removal Proposal Wachob, Gabe
• Editorial Issue: SOAPAction Marc Hadley

Tuesday, 4 October 2005

• What to do when SOAPAction and Default Action Pattern conflict? Katy Warr

Saturday, 1 October 2005

• Re: wsa:Action for undefined faults Pete Hendry
• Addressing Requirements for XMLP Mark Nottingham
• Re: CR Issue (SOAP binding): Mapping of headers to MAPs and "WSA is engaged" Mark Nottingham
• i056/i057 options Mark Nottingham
• i061 resolution Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Monday, 31 October 2005 19:11:08 UTC