rationale for rejecting LC75a
WSDL Action Item: Review LC75s Table
On the typing of message parts in WSDL
Agenda, 3-4 March 2005 WS Desc FTF, Boston
Minutes, 24 February 2005 WS Description telcon
Proposed Change for Interface Component {features} and {properties}
Action 2005-01-13 Resolution of Issue 271
Action 2005-01-13 Resolution of Issue 270
Agenda, 24 February 2004 WS Desc telcon
RE: Choice of response message in WSDL
WBS straw poll on Appendix E disposition (closes Wed midnight)
Minutes, 17 February 2005 WS Description WG telcon
RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d
Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d
Regrets for Telecon 2005-02-15
schemaLocation background
Follow up on versioning and ADD feature
Agenda, 17 February 2004 WS Desc telcon
[OT] Call for participation in an experiment
SSDL: SOAP Service Description Language
Minutes, 10 February 2005 WS Description telcon
RE: i017b: Action and ONM
Consistency of WSDL Component property names
LC84b: Proposal for generic action property
Agenda, 10 February 2004 WS Desc telcon
Consistency of WSDL Component property names
FW: i017b: Action and ONM
RE: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model
- RE: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model
- RE: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model
RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
- Re: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
- RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
- RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?
- RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties?