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

Ahmad Anvari

• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)
• Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)

Andrew Layman

• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (Thursday, 1 November)
• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Arie Golos

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Friday, 12 October)
• XML Protocol Abstract Model Draft question (Friday, 5 October)

Asir S Vedamuthu

• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Friday, 26 October)
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID (Wednesday, 17 October)
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID (Monday, 15 October)
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules (Friday, 12 October)
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Array Member as an Independent Element ?? (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)

Barbara Price

• Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• re: issue 29: exist non-serialisable data models (Wednesday, 17 October)

Bob Hutchison

• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Champion, Mike

• RE: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Charles E Campbell

• XBase research Action Item (Wednesday, 3 October)

Christopher Ferris

• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: Proposed resolution on use of XML base (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Friday, 12 October)
• comments on the primer proposal draft (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution resolution (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)

Corda, Ugo

• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Thursday, 4 October)

Dan Brickley

• Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd) (Tuesday, 30 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding (Wednesday, 10 October)

Dave Cleary

• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 9 October)

Dave Winer

• Re: Generic XML Protocols and SOAP (Thursday, 11 October)

David Fallside

• Re: Proposal for closing issue 8 (Tuesday, 30 October)
• SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Thursday, 11 October)

David Orchard

• Proposed positive text for XML Base (Saturday, 6 October)

Dirk-Willem van Gulik

• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl (Friday, 5 October)

Doug Davis

• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Saturday, 6 October)

Ed_Hess@Vanguard.com

• Generic XML Protocols and SOAP (Thursday, 11 October)

Francis Norton

• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Glyn Normington

• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Tuesday, 16 October)
• [AMG] Need for XMLP_UnitData.forward Correlation parameter (Thursday, 4 October)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Proposal for closing issue 8 (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Proposal for resolving issue 40: Support resource constrained devices (Monday, 29 October)
• Proposal for closing issue 8 (Monday, 29 October)
• Resolving issue 39: Ease-of-deployment (Thursday, 25 October)
• Proposed resolution of issue 37 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Proposed resolution on use of XML base (Tuesday, 23 October)
• RE: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Friday, 5 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Thursday, 4 October)

Hugo Haas

• Comments on issue 101 (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Tuesday, 16 October)
• SOAP Version 1.2 Test Collection - Call for contributions (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Minutes of the 15 October 2001 encoding task force teleconference (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: Intent of SOAP fault code extensibility (Monday, 15 October)
• Minutes of the 11 October 2001 encoding task force teleconference (Monday, 15 October)
• Minutes of the 3 October 2001 teleconference (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding (Friday, 5 October)
• Publication of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework and SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts as W3C Working Drafts (Tuesday, 2 October)

Hutchison, Nigel

• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Tuesday, 16 October)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names (Tuesday, 30 October)
• RE: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? (Monday, 29 October)
• RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Friday, 26 October)
• issue: type of 'href' referenced data? (Thursday, 25 October)
• ETF: updated list of issues related to encoding (Thursday, 25 October)
• issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Thursday, 25 October)
• Idoox renamed to Systinet (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: Proposed resolution of issue 37 (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Tuesday, 23 October)
• proposed resolution to issue #30 (Monday, 22 October)
• ETF: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Tuesday, 16 October)
• new SOAP Encoding spec issue (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• ETF: Issues related to encoding (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Issue 153: overlapping section 2 and 4 (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? (Monday, 29 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Friday, 12 October)
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Friday, 12 October)
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)

john d. beatty

• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Wednesday, 10 October)

John Ibbotson

• Usage Scenarios (Friday, 19 October)
• Usage Scenarios (Wednesday, 10 October)

John J. Barton

• Soap Messages with Attachments issues (Thursday, 25 October)
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)

Jonathan Marsh

• RE: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Wednesday, 17 October)

Joseph Hui

• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)

Kumeda

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Tuesday, 23 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Tuesday, 23 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)

Marc Hadley

• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: Proposed resolution on use of XML base (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: ETF: Issue 48 Discussion (Monday, 22 October)
• ETF: Issue 48 Discussion (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Mark Baker

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 29 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• HTTP binding concerns (Tuesday, 23 October)
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 (Monday, 8 October)
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: Proposal for closing issue 8 (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? (Thursday, 18 October)
• Is the initial sender a node? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Martin Gudgin

• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Monday, 8 October)

Marwan Sabbouh

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Joining the conf call at 3:30 ET -Thanks (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Tuesday, 23 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 19 October)
• SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Thursday, 11 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Thursday, 11 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Thursday, 11 October)
• SOAP concerns (Thursday, 11 October)
• Re: SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments (Thursday, 11 October)

Mike Dierken

• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Mike Martin

• msxml3.dll error '80072ee7' (Thursday, 18 October)

Mountain, Highland M

• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)

Mullins, Chalon

• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)

Nilo Mitra (EMX)

• SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments (Wednesday, 10 October)

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs (Thursday, 1 November)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Comments on issue 101 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Thursday, 25 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? (Thursday, 18 October)
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 (Thursday, 18 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• Re: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus (Wednesday, 17 October)
• TBTF: Four possible points of concensus (Wednesday, 17 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Wednesday, 17 October)
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Tuesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Tuesday, 16 October)
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP concerns (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Tuesday, 9 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Re: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP? (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Monday, 1 October)

Oisin Hurley

• Issue 68 - status information (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names (Wednesday, 31 October)
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Monday, 8 October)

Pae Choi

• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) (Monday, 15 October)
• Re: SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments (Wednesday, 10 October)

Paul Cotton

• Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? (Thursday, 11 October)

Paul Denning

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Friday, 12 October)

Paul Gibbons

• Intent of SOAP fault code extensibility (Monday, 8 October)

Pete Hendry

• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types (Wednesday, 24 October)
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 (Tuesday, 9 October)
• Fault HTTP status 500 (Monday, 8 October)

Rebecca Dias

• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)

Rich Salz

• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? (Wednesday, 31 October)
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? (Tuesday, 30 October)
• Re: Binding Framework Introduction (Friday, 26 October)
• Re: ETF: Issue 48 Discussion (Monday, 22 October)
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base (Friday, 19 October)
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules (Friday, 12 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Wednesday, 10 October)
• Re: ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Friday, 5 October)
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type (Thursday, 4 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) (Wednesday, 3 October)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) (Tuesday, 2 October)

Rickabaugh, Brian (GEA, 094855)

• RE: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. (Tuesday, 2 October)
• Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. (Tuesday, 2 October)

Roger L. Costello

• Re: SOAP concerns (Friday, 12 October)

shen yun

• Why use Attributes? (Wednesday, 17 October)

Shuo Shen

• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Tuesday, 9 October)
• SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? (Monday, 8 October)

Steve Vinoski

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 26 October)

Williams, Stuart

• Binding Framework Introduction (Friday, 26 October)
• SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Wednesday, 24 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Monday, 22 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents (Friday, 19 October)
• RE: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus (Wednesday, 17 October)
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID (Tuesday, 16 October)
• FW: Issue 140 Closed (Monday, 15 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 10 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Monday, 8 October)
• RE: XML Protocol Abstract Model Draft question (Monday, 8 October)
• RE: [AMG] Need for XMLP_UnitData.forward Correlation parameter (Friday, 5 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Thursday, 4 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Wednesday, 3 October)
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? (Tuesday, 2 October)

Yves Lafon

• minutes of 24/10 teleconference (Wednesday, 31 October)
• ETF minutes 30/10/2001 (Wednesday, 31 October)
• minutes of ETF teleconferences 19/10 and 26/10 (Monday, 29 October)
• Re: Binding Framework Introduction (Friday, 26 October)
• Minutes of 10 and 17 october teleconferences (Thursday, 25 October)
• Minutes of 26 september 2001 teleconference (Wednesday, 3 October)
• minutes of XML Protocol Binding Task Force teleconferences (Tuesday, 2 October)

Last message date: Wednesday, 31 October 2001 21:55:52 UTC