xml-dist-app@w3.org from July 2001 by author

Aleksander Slominski

• Re: benchmarking SOAP? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: benchmarking SOAP? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: SOAP and OO: Dynamic Services (Wednesday, 11 July)

ali kazmi

• what effect will SOAP have on EAI ? (Monday, 2 July)

Andrew Layman

• RE: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model (Friday, 13 July)
• RE: SOAP and OO: Dynamic Services (Wednesday, 11 July)

Arie Golos

• Unsolicited messages server to client with HTTP binding (Friday, 13 July)

Arun Mahajan

• how to send/receive dynamic xml file through servlet !! (Saturday, 21 July)

Ben Peacock

• SOAP and OO: Dynamic Services (Wednesday, 11 July)

Bob Cunnings

• (Fwd) RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• (Fwd) Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model (Friday, 13 July)

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen

• clarifications on XML Schema base64Binary type (Friday, 27 July)

christopher ferris

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Tuesday, 24 July)
• RPCTF: correlation extension proposal (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: Processing which is not triggered by blocks? (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: TBTF: nature of transport bindings (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• proposed re-write of http binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• issues related to bindings (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Summary of the binding discussion (was Re: Protocol Bindings) (Friday, 13 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)

Chuck Campbell

• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? -- A PROPOSAL (Monday, 30 July)

Dan Brickley

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• ODBC/JDBC interface over SOAP? (Thursday, 5 July)

Daniela Florescu

• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• FW: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• RE: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)

Dave Winer

• Python to bake-in XML-RPC support (Wednesday, 11 July)

David Crowley

• Re: A tale of two bindings (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)

David Fallside

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16 (Monday, 30 July)
• HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: SOAP Schemas reproduction (Monday, 16 July)
• Re: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model (Friday, 13 July)
• base64 encoding (Thursday, 12 July)

Doug Davis

• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: new MU Fault header (Saturday, 21 July)
• new MU Fault header (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: SOAP & unmarshalling inline (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Eamon O'Tuathail

• RE: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Saturday, 7 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• SOAP over BEEP - updated draft available (Thursday, 5 July)

Elliotte Rusty Harold

• SOAP Schemas reproduction (Monday, 16 July)

Eric Jenkins

• Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related notions of identity. (Tuesday, 24 July)

Eugene Kuznetsov

• RE: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• RE: A tale of two bindings (Tuesday, 24 July)

Ext-Shaun.OHagan@nokia.com

• [xml-dist-app] <none> (Friday, 6 July)
• [xml-dist-app] <none> (Thursday, 5 July)

Francis Norton

• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)

Frank D. Greco

• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)

Frank DeRose

• RE: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Wednesday, 25 July)
• RE: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Tuesday, 24 July)
• RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Monday, 23 July)
• RPCTF: Referencing Header items from Body (Monday, 23 July)
• RPCTF: Relationship of Sections 5 and 7 in SOAP 1.2 (Monday, 23 July)
• RE: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model (Monday, 16 July)

Gaertner, Dr., Dietmar

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)

Glen Daniels

• RE: Bindings : a quick cut at an abstract definition (Monday, 30 July)
• Bindings : a quick cut at an abstract definition (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Sunday, 29 July)
• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Friday, 27 July)
• TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Thursday, 26 July)
• Some edits on the TBTF minutes (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Fw: new MU Fault header (Saturday, 21 July)
• Processing which is not triggered by blocks? (Saturday, 21 July)
• Issue 99 : Proposed resolution (Friday, 20 July)
• Issue 100 (MustUnderstand fault caused by block addressed to anot her node) (Wednesday, 18 July)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 (Wednesday, 18 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)

Hugo Haas

• Re: List of testable assertions in the SOAP Version 1.2 specification (Tuesday, 31 July)
• TBTF telcon draft minutes - 30 July 2001 (Monday, 30 July)
• TBTF telcon minutes - 26 July 2001 (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: TBTF: Proposed Sections for Binding Specifications (Thursday, 26 July)
• List of testable assertions in the SOAP Version 1.2 specification (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: TBTF: SOAP over SMTP Binding Proposal - HTML (Tuesday, 24 July)
• [TBTF] Minutes of the 19 and 23 July telcons (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: TBTF: SOAP over SMTP Binding Proposal - HTML (Thursday, 19 July)
• Minutes of the 13 July protocol binding TF telcon (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Summary of the binding discussion (was Re: Protocol Bindings) (Friday, 13 July)
• Summary of the binding discussion (was Re: Protocol Bindings) (Thursday, 12 July)
• Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model (Monday, 9 July)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: What is an independent element (Thursday, 26 July)
• RPCTF: issues affected by removing dependencies on encoding from RPC (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• RE: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• RE: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: default fault destination (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: Processing which is not triggered by blocks? (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Monday, 23 July)
• [RPCTF] issues pertaining to RPC (Monday, 23 July)
• [RPCTF] RPC as an application or an extension of SOAP? (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Proposed resolution to issue #102 (Wednesday, 18 July)

james anderson

• SOAP & unmarshalling inline (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)

John Ibbotson

• RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 (Tuesday, 24 July)

Joseph M. Reagle Jr.

• Re: Comments on XML Encryption (Monday, 16 July)

Kirill Gavrylyuk

• RE: List of testable assertions in the SOAP Version 1.2 specification (Friday, 27 July)

Krishna Sankar

• RE: SOAP and OO: Dynamic Services (Thursday, 12 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Monday, 9 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)

Kurt Cagle

• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Saturday, 28 July)

laird

• RE: Protocol Bindings (Tuesday, 10 July)

Maggie Cusack

• Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)

Marc Hadley

• Re: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related notions of identity. (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Issues 16 and 78 (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related notions of identity. (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: Issue 100 (MustUnderstand fault caused by block addressed to anot her node) (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)

Mark Baker

• Re: Two uses of SOAP (Monday, 30 July)
• Two uses of SOAP (Saturday, 28 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Tuesday, 24 July)
• A tale of two bindings (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• RE: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)

Mark Jones

• Re: RPCTF: Referencing Header items from Body (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: infoset and bindings (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: infoset and bindings (Monday, 16 July)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Monday, 30 July)
• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: TBTF: Proposed Sections for Binding Specifications (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• benchmarking SOAP? (Tuesday, 24 July)
• Re: Processing which is not triggered by blocks? (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: revised 'loose' HTTP binding [CORRECTION] (Saturday, 21 July)
• revised 'loose' HTTP binding (Saturday, 21 July)
• default fault destination (Friday, 20 July)
• FYI: SOAP "Bar BoF" at IETF (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• TBTF: nesting (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: infoset and bindings (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• TBTF: nature of transport bindings (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: HTTP Extension Framwork in SOAP 1.2 (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Binding example discussion (Tuesday, 17 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: infoset and bindings (Monday, 9 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Saturday, 7 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Saturday, 7 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Marshall T. Rose

• Re: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)

Martin Gudgin

• Re: [ANN] 2001 XML Schema compliant SOAP 1.1 schemas (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: SOAP Schemas reproduction (Tuesday, 17 July)
• [ANN] 2001 XML Schema compliant SOAP 1.1 schemas (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: 2000 Schemas for SOAP 1.1 (Tuesday, 10 July)
• 2000 Schemas for SOAP 1.1 (Tuesday, 10 July)

Michael Brennan

• Use of xml:lang incompatible with SOAP encoding? (Wednesday, 18 July)
• RE: Summary of the binding discussion (was Re: Protocol Bindings) (Thursday, 12 July)

Mountain, Highland M

• RE: Bindings : a quick cut at an abstract definition (Monday, 30 July)
• TBTF: Proposed Sections for Binding Specifications (Friday, 20 July)
• RE: TBTF: SOAP over SMTP Binding Proposal - HTML (Thursday, 19 July)
• TBTF: SOAP over SMTP Binding Proposal - HTML (Thursday, 19 July)
• RE: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Wednesday, 18 July)
• SOAP over SMTP - Rough Draft (Wednesday, 18 July)

Murali Janakiraman

• What is an independent element (Tuesday, 24 July)

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

• Re: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Tuesday, 3 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Oisin Hurley

• RE: TBTF: nature of transport bindings (Thursday, 19 July)
• SOAP over TCP/IP (Wednesday, 18 July)

Orchard, David

• Comments on XML Encryption (Sunday, 15 July)

Paul Denning

• [TBTF] Binding Context (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Proposed resolution: issues 78, 16 (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related notions of identity. (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: default fault destination (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: [RPCTF] RPC as an application or an extension of SOAP? (Monday, 23 July)

Philip DesAutels

• Schema update (Wednesday, 25 July)

puja

• xml tranformation through asp and xsl (Tuesday, 10 July)

Rich Salz

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Saturday, 28 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Friday, 27 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Thursday, 26 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Re: A tale of two bindings (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Monday, 23 July)
• Re: Processing which is not triggered by blocks? (Saturday, 21 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: TBTF: nesting (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Friday, 20 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: Issue 100 (MustUnderstand fault caused by block addressed to anot her node) (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: another approach to status codes, etc. in HTTP binding (Thursday, 19 July)
• Re: Binding example discussion (Wednesday, 18 July)
• Re: base64 encoding (Friday, 13 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Thursday, 12 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Wednesday, 11 July)
• Re: 2000 Schemas for SOAP 1.1 (Tuesday, 10 July)
• Re: Protocol Bindings (Sunday, 8 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)
• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Richard Featherstone

• RE XML-RPC (Thursday, 19 July)

Roger L. Costello

• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Monday, 30 July)

Scott Cantor

• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)

Scott Hinkelman

• RE: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: Toss section 5 (create SOAP-lite) (Tuesday, 31 July)
• Re: RPCTF: Should RPC be core or an extension ? (Wednesday, 25 July)

Sean McGrath

• Re: Infoset based rewrite of SOAP Section 4 (Monday, 2 July)

Syed Ahmad

• RE: benchmarking SOAP? (Wednesday, 25 July)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: Bindings : a quick cut at an abstract definition (Monday, 30 July)
• RE: TBTF: A distillation of sorts (Monday, 30 July)
• RE: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related not ions of identity. (Wednesday, 25 July)
• RE: Summary of the binding discussion (was Re: Protocol Bindings) (Friday, 13 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Wednesday, 11 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Tuesday, 10 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Monday, 9 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Monday, 9 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Friday, 6 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 5 July)
• Protocol Bindings (Tuesday, 3 July)

Yves Lafon

• minutes of 11 and 18 July 2001 teleconferences (Wednesday, 25 July)
• Minute of RPC Task force teleconference (Friday, 20 July)
• RE: Protocol Bindings (Thursday, 12 July)

Last message date: Tuesday, 31 July 2001 18:17:13 UTC