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

Thursday, 1 November 2001

• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding Andrew Layman

Wednesday, 31 October 2001

• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Doug Davis
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Christopher Ferris
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Doug Davis
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding Andrew Layman
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Issue 68 - status information Oisin Hurley
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Martin Gudgin
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Doug Davis
• minutes of 24/10 teleconference Yves Lafon
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Asir S Vedamuthu
• ETF minutes 30/10/2001 Yves Lafon
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Doug Davis
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Christopher Ferris
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Rich Salz
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Christopher Ferris
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Oisin Hurley
• RE: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? Oisin Hurley
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Asir S Vedamuthu
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Oisin Hurley
• RE: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names Oisin Hurley
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Marc Hadley
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Comments on issue 101 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Comments on issue 101 Doug Davis

Tuesday, 30 October 2001

• Comments on issue 101 Hugo Haas
• Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? Barbara Price
• Re: RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? (fwd) Dan Brickley
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names Martin Gudgin
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Christopher Ferris
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Rich Salz
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles,HOW? Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? Rich Salz
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? Jacek Kopecky
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Most to least specific encodingStyles, HOW? Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names Jacek Kopecky
• Issue 153: overlapping section 2 and 4 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names Martin Gudgin
• RE: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• Issue 143: Client and Server fault code names Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 8 Mark Nottingham
• RE: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Andrew Layman
• RE: Proposal for closing issue 8 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 8 David Fallside

Monday, 29 October 2001

• Proposal for resolving issue 40: Support resource constrained devices Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Proposal for closing issue 8 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• minutes of ETF teleconferences 19/10 and 26/10 Yves Lafon
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Mark Baker

Friday, 26 October 2001

• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Joseph Hui
• RSVP: Resolution to issue #29 satisfactory? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Binding Framework Introduction Rich Salz
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Steve Vinoski
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue: type of 'href' referenced data? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Christopher Ferris
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• Re: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: Binding Framework Introduction Yves Lafon
• Binding Framework Introduction Williams, Stuart
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marc Hadley
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Mark Baker
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda

Thursday, 25 October 2001

• Soap Messages with Attachments issues John J. Barton
• issue: type of 'href' referenced data? Jacek Kopecky
• ETF: updated list of issues related to encoding Jacek Kopecky
• issue #144 proposal - array metadata in SOAP Encoding (long) Jacek Kopecky
• Idoox renamed to Systinet Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Mark Baker
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Arie Golos
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Mountain, Highland M
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Christopher Ferris
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Christopher Ferris
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Minutes of 10 and 17 october teleconferences Yves Lafon
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Doug Davis
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marc Hadley
• Re: Proposed resolution of issue 37 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda
• Resolving issue 39: Ease-of-deployment Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

Wednesday, 24 October 2001

• Proposed resolution of issue 37 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: proposed resolution to issue #30 Champion, Mike
• Joining the conf call at 3:30 ET -Thanks Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Christopher Ferris
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Christopher Ferris
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Proposed resolution on use of XML base Christopher Ferris
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marc Hadley
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types Pete Hendry
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Support for XML Schema Types Asir S Vedamuthu
• SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Williams, Stuart
• Re: Proposed resolution on use of XML base Marc Hadley
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marc Hadley
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda

Tuesday, 23 October 2001

• Proposed resolution on use of XML base Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda
• HTTP binding concerns Mark Baker
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda

Monday, 22 October 2001

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: proposed resolution to issue #30 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Williams, Stuart
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Williams, Stuart
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: ETF: Issue 48 Discussion Marc Hadley
• Re: ETF: Issue 48 Discussion Rich Salz
• proposed resolution to issue #30 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? Christopher Ferris
• ETF: Issue 48 Discussion Marc Hadley
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Kumeda
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? Jean-Jacques Moreau

Friday, 19 October 2001

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Rich Salz
• Usage Scenarios John Ibbotson
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Williams, Stuart
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Williams, Stuart
• ETF: summary of soapbuilders discussion about inlining multirefs Jacek Kopecky
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Glyn Normington
• Re: SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• SOAP Binding Framework Concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Williams, Stuart
• RE: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Williams, Stuart

Thursday, 18 October 2001

• Re: Is the initial sender a node? Mark Nottingham
• RE: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Jonathan Marsh
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Christopher Ferris
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Marc Hadley
• Re: Is the initial sender a node? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• msxml3.dll error '80072ee7' Mike Martin
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base christopher ferris
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Doug Davis
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Doug Davis
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Hugo Haas
• Re: FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Hugo Haas
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Hugo Haas

Wednesday, 17 October 2001

• FW: Proposed positive text for XML Base Jonathan Marsh
• Is the initial sender a node? Mark Nottingham
• re: issue 29: exist non-serialisable data models Barbara Price
• RE: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus Williams, Stuart
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Asir S Vedamuthu
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID Asir S Vedamuthu
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Jacek Kopecky
• Why use Attributes? shen yun
• Re: TBTF: Four possible points of concensus Christopher Ferris
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Dan Brickley
• TBTF: Four possible points of concensus Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Mark Nottingham
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Andrew Layman

Tuesday, 16 October 2001

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Glyn Normington
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Christopher Ferris
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Hutchison, Nigel
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Christopher Ferris
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Doug Davis
• RE: [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID Williams, Stuart
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Hugo Haas
• SOAP Version 1.2 Test Collection - Call for contributions Hugo Haas
• Minutes of the 15 October 2001 encoding task force teleconference Hugo Haas

Monday, 15 October 2001

• Re: Intent of SOAP fault code extensibility Hugo Haas
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Multi-reference 'id' attribute - NOT a real ID Asir S Vedamuthu
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Christopher Ferris
• RE: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Christopher Ferris
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Minutes of the 11 October 2001 encoding task force teleconference Hugo Haas
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Christopher Ferris
• new SOAP Encoding spec issue Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Doug Davis
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Doug Davis
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Pae Choi
• FW: Issue 140 Closed Williams, Stuart
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules Martin Gudgin
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding Jacek Kopecky
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau

Friday, 12 October 2001

• Re: SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents Paul Denning
• Re: SOAP concerns Arie Golos
• Re: [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules Rich Salz
• Re: SOAP concerns Christopher Ferris
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] arrayType Production Rules Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: SOAP concerns Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• [SOAP Encoding Issue] Array Member as an Independent Element ?? Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: SOAP concerns Christopher Ferris
• Re: SOAP concerns Roger L. Costello
• Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Doug Davis
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd) Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Dan Brickley

Thursday, 11 October 2001

• SOAP Binding Framework, HTTP Binding, MEP documents David Fallside
• Issue 29: Exist non-serialisable data models? Paul Cotton
• Re: Generic XML Protocols and SOAP Dave Winer
• Generic XML Protocols and SOAP Ed_Hess@Vanguard.com
• Re: SOAP concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: SOAP concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: SOAP concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• SOAP concerns Marwan Sabbouh
• Re: SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments Marwan Sabbouh

Wednesday, 10 October 2001

• Re: SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments Pae Choi
• Minutes of the 3 October 2001 teleconference Hugo Haas
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Corda, Ugo
• SOAP Primer 1st draft available for comments Nilo Mitra (EMX)
• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? john d. beatty
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding Dan Brickley
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• comments on the primer proposal draft Christopher Ferris
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Corda, Ugo
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Hugo Haas
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Andrew Layman
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Rich Salz
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Christopher Ferris
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Mullins, Chalon
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Christopher Ferris
• Re: Comments/Issues on Part 1 Doug Davis
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Doug Davis
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• Usage Scenarios John Ibbotson
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Doug Davis
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

Tuesday, 9 October 2001

• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? John J. Barton
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 Pete Hendry
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 Mark Baker
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Dave Cleary
• RE: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Shuo Shen
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 Pete Hendry
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 Mark Nottingham
• Re: SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? John J. Barton

Monday, 8 October 2001

• Intent of SOAP fault code extensibility Paul Gibbons
• Re: Fault HTTP status 500 Mark Baker
• SOAP-Attachment question -> handling large attachment? Shuo Shen
• Fault HTTP status 500 Pete Hendry
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• RE: XML Protocol Abstract Model Draft question Williams, Stuart
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Christopher Ferris
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Doug Davis
• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Martin Gudgin
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Oisin Hurley

Saturday, 6 October 2001

• Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base Doug Davis
• Proposed positive text for XML Base David Orchard

Friday, 5 October 2001

• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type John J. Barton
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Ahmad Anvari
• Re: ETF: Issues related to encoding Hugo Haas
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Ahmad Anvari
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Dirk-Willem van Gulik
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Mike Dierken
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Ahmad Anvari
• Re: Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Dirk-Willem van Gulik
• Sending XML codes through HTTP post in Perl Ahmad Anvari
• XML Protocol Abstract Model Draft question Arie Golos
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Corda, Ugo
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Christopher Ferris
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Jacek Kopecky
• Re: ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type Rich Salz
• Re: ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Rebecca Dias
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Rich Salz
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Asir S Vedamuthu
• RE: [AMG] Need for XMLP_UnitData.forward Correlation parameter Williams, Stuart

Thursday, 4 October 2001

• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Corda, Ugo
• Re: Possibility of an XML Document Type Rich Salz
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Corda, Ugo
• RE: Possibility of an XML Document Type Andrew Layman
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• ETF: Possibility of an XML Document Type Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• [AMG] Need for XMLP_UnitData.forward Correlation parameter Glyn Normington
• ETF: Issues related to encoding Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

Wednesday, 3 October 2001

• Re: Issue 140 bogus? Christopher Ferris
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• Minutes of 26 september 2001 teleconference Yves Lafon
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution resolution Christopher Ferris
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• XBase research Action Item Charles E Campbell
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) Francis Norton
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Rich Salz

Tuesday, 2 October 2001

• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. Mark Baker
• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com

Monday, 1 October 2001

• Re: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP? Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Bob Hutchison

Tuesday, 2 October 2001

• RE: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. Rickabaugh, Brian (GEA, 094855)
• Re: Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. Mark Baker
• Determining when an HTTP Post is a SOAP request. Rickabaugh, Brian (GEA, 094855)
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) Rich Salz
• Publication of SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework and SOAP Version 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts as W3C Working Drafts Hugo Haas
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIsin SOAP) Francis Norton
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Williams, Stuart
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue 140 bogus? Mike Dierken
• Re: Issue 140 bogus? christopher ferris
• Issue 140 bogus? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) christopher ferris
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarationand PIs in SOAP) Francis Norton
• minutes of XML Protocol Binding Task Force teleconferences Yves Lafon
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) Champion, Mike
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Bob Hutchison
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Bob Hutchison

Monday, 1 October 2001

• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Francis Norton
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Francis Norton
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Bob Hutchison
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Andrew Layman
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Andrew Layman
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) Champion, Mike
• RE: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declarati on and PIs in SOAP) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue 4 Proposed Resolution (was: why no doc type declaration and PIs in SOAP) Jacek Kopecky

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