www-ws-desc@w3.org from January 2005 by date

Monday, 31 January 2005

• Action item on changing processor conformance to document conformance David Booth
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Amelia A Lewis
• Re: SOAP Header Blocks in WSDL (was RE: First Class Headers - Propose d Resolution for LC76d Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Arthur Ryman
• Re: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Henry S. Thompson
• SOAP Header Blocks in WSDL (was RE: First Class Headers - Propose d Resolution for LC76d Asir Vedamuthu

Sunday, 30 January 2005

• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Sanjiva Weerawarana

Saturday, 29 January 2005

• Minutes, 27 Jan 2005 WS Description telcon Jonathan Marsh

Friday, 28 January 2005

• Minutes [+ summary]: 19-20 January 2005 WS Description FTF Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Two logical WSDL documents describing the same service Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Arthur Ryman
• Re: Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties Arthur Ryman
• RE: Two logical WSDL documents describing the same service David Booth
• Re: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Arthur Ryman
• RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Liu, Kevin
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Roberto Chinnici
• Re: Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties Amelia A Lewis
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Amelia A Lewis
• RE: Two logical WSDL documents describing the same service paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Amelia A Lewis
• Re: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Henry S. Thompson
• RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Asir Vedamuthu
• Re: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Sanjiva Weerawarana

Thursday, 27 January 2005

• RE: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Arthur Ryman
• RE: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Ugo Corda
• RE: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Ugo Corda
• RE: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Arthur Ryman
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Roberto Chinnici
• RE: What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Ugo Corda
• What Happens if 2 Inline Schemas Define the Same Element? Arthur Ryman
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Sanjiva Weerawarana
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Arthur Ryman
• RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Asir Vedamuthu
• Proposed Resolution for LC52a Asir Vedamuthu
• Proposed Resolution for LC52a Asir Vedamuthu
• Re: Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Amelia A Lewis
• [Fwd: FW: Proposed Resolution for LC52a] David Booth
• Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties Arthur Ryman
• Proposed Resolution for LC75t and LC92 Asir Vedamuthu
• Proposed Resolution for LC75s and LC91 Asir Vedamuthu
• Meeting records list still in 2004... Rogers, Tony
• Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model Arthur Ryman

Wednesday, 26 January 2005

• Agenda, 27 January 2004 WS Desc telcon Jonathan Marsh
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Prasad Yendluri
• Re: Comments on Primer David Booth
• RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Liu, Kevin
• RE: Comments on Primer Liu, Kevin
• RE: Choice of response message in WSDL Liu, Kevin
• RE: Choice of response message in WSDL Arthur Ryman
• RE: Choice of response message in WSDL Tony Fletcher
• Re: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Jean-Jacques Moreau

Monday, 24 January 2005

• Re: Choice of response message in WSDL Arthur Ryman
• Choice of response message in WSDL Tony Fletcher
• RE: First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Asir Vedamuthu
• First Class Headers - Proposed Resolution for LC76d Asir Vedamuthu
• Comments on Primer Arthur Ryman

Saturday, 22 January 2005

• Last CFP: Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN) Gagnon, Stephane

Friday, 21 January 2005

• Headers Proposal V1.2 David Orchard
• RE: Headers proposal V 1.1 (compatible with V1.0) Tom Jordahl
• Headers proposal V 1.1 (compatible with V1.0) David Orchard
• XML 1.1 Dropped, XSD 1.0 Simple Types Used Arthur Ryman

Thursday, 20 January 2005

• Headers proposal revisited David Orchard
• Re: Initial PDF Version of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Available Jean-Jacques Moreau
• apparent bug on the operation name mapping requirement text Francisco Curbera

Wednesday, 19 January 2005

• Initial PDF Version of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Available Arthur Ryman
• [revised] Agenda, 20-21 January 2005 WS Desc FTF, Melbourne AUS Jonathan Marsh

Monday, 17 January 2005

• Agenda, 19 Jan 2005 joint WS Description, WS Addressing FTF meeting Jonathan Marsh
• RE: What is the SOAP MEP for In-only Asir Vedamuthu

Sunday, 16 January 2005

• Re: Agenda, 20-21 January 2005 WS Desc FTF, Melbourne AUS Roberto Chinnici

Saturday, 15 January 2005

• Agenda, 20-21 January 2005 WS Desc FTF, Melbourne AUS Jonathan Marsh

Friday, 14 January 2005

• What is the SOAP MEP for In-only Yalcinalp, Umit

Thursday, 13 January 2005

• Re: Meaning of a WSDL document David Booth
• Minutes, 13 Jan 2005 WS Description telcon Jonathan Marsh
• ACTION 2005-01-06 Umit to respond to Henry Yalcinalp, Umit

Wednesday, 12 January 2005

• [revised] Agenda, 13 January 2004 WS Desc telcon Jonathan Marsh

Tuesday, 11 January 2005

• Agenda, 13 January 2004 WS Desc telcon Jonathan Marsh
• Minutes, 6 Jan 2005 WS Description telcon Jonathan Marsh

Monday, 10 January 2005

• Re: wsdli:wsdlLocation WSDL-version independent Arthur Ryman

Thursday, 6 January 2005

• RE: Last Call issue: How does the Operation Name Mapping Requirement (Part 1, section 2.2.1.1) relate to interface inheritance? Glen Daniels
• RE: Issue 259 Some alternatives, proposals Asir Vedamuthu
• Workshop on Business Services Networks (BSN) Gagnon, Stephane
• Re: Issue 259 Some alternatives, proposals Mark Nottingham
• Issue 263 (Lexical and value space of the attributes and XML Schema Decl) Proposed Resolution Yalcinalp, Umit
• Issue 262 (Value of contentType and the range specified by expectedMediaType) Proposed Resolution Yalcinalp, Umit
• Issue 261 (Allow expecteMediaType to contain '*') Proposed Resolution Yalcinalp, Umit
• Issue 268 (Interop Problems with Accept header) Proposed Resolution Yalcinalp, Umit

Wednesday, 5 January 2005

• Issue 266 Differentiating the type of binary Content when no schema is present Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: New Twisty Alternate Versions of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• Issue 259 Some alternatives, proposals Yalcinalp, Umit
• Issue 260 Some alternatives Yalcinalp, Umit
• Issue 258 Proposed Resolution Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: New Twisty Alternate Versions of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Amelia A Lewis
• Re: New Twisty Alternate Versions of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• Re: New Twisty Alternate Versions of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Amelia A Lewis
• New Twisty Alternate Versions of WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Arthur Ryman
• RE: Agenda, 6 January 2004 WS Desc telcon [Media Type Description] Yalcinalp, Umit

Tuesday, 4 January 2005

• Agenda, 6 January 2004 WS Desc telcon [Media Type Description] Jonathan Marsh

Monday, 3 January 2005

• RE: Action 2004-11-11 check on operation@style (LC61a) (or REOPE N LC21 Resolution B) Tom Jordahl

Last message date: Monday, 31 January 2005 21:42:43 UTC