xml-dist-app@w3.org from April 2002 by author

a.chatterjee

• Please remove from list (Saturday, 20 April)

amr.f.yassin@philips.com

• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• IP, TCP/UDP as XML App (Tuesday, 2 April)

Anish Karmarkar

• Re: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Re: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Friday, 12 April)

Anne Thomas Manes

• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Monday, 22 April)

Asir S Vedamuthu

• RE: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Locally vs. Globally Scoped (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Thursday, 18 April)
• [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Tuesday, 16 April)
• [Issue, March 20th 2002] Locally vs. Globally Scoped (Tuesday, 16 April)
• [Issue, March 20th 2002] Serializer vs. De-serializer (Tuesday, 16 April)

Bob Cunnings

• Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Wednesday, 3 April)

Christopher Ferris

• Re: issue #196 closed (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: mime type for SOAP Encoding XML format (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: mime type for SOAP Encoding XML format (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Friday, 19 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Issue: HTTP transcoding [ was: What is W3C's position on RFC 3205? ] (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Issue #203 : First draft text (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Remove TOC for Pt2 from Pt1 and Vice Versa ? (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• log of 4/4/02 TBTF call IRC minutes (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• more Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Monday, 1 April)

Dan Brickley

• mime type for SOAP Encoding XML format (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Thursday, 18 April)

daniel mcelligott

• new to xml (Monday, 15 April)

David Crowley

• Re: FW: TBTF: Proposal for issue 196 (Wednesday, 3 April)

David Fallside

• Resolution of Issue 61 (Friday, 19 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Thursday, 18 April)
• Issue List Closure (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Proposed resolution for issue 29 (Tuesday, 9 April)

David Orchard

• FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Monday, 15 April)

Don Box

• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)

Edwin Khodabakchian

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Eugene Kuznetsov

• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Sunday, 21 April)

freeoffer@bandfest.com

• Join us in Orlando! (Wednesday, 24 April)

Glen Daniels

• Modules and Features and URIs, oh my! (Thursday, 25 April)
• RE: Issue #203 : First draft text (Monday, 22 April)
• Issue #203 : First draft text (Thursday, 11 April)
• RE: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: faultactor (Wednesday, 3 April)

Grahame Grieve

• WSDL question (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: HTTP vs. SOAP intermediaries (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Monday, 1 April)

Grose, Timothy E.

• Please remove from list (Friday, 19 April)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• RE: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• RE: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Monday, 22 April)
• Proposal for closing issue 201 (Monday, 22 April)
• Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Issue 192 & R803 (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Issue 192 & R803 (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Issue 192 & R803 (Monday, 15 April)
• Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Issue 82 : Proposed resolution (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for issue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Updated proposal for issue 192 (Tuesday, 9 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HTTP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: more Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• FW: TBTF: Proposal for issue 196 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Tuesday, 2 April)

Herve Ruellan

• Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Wednesday, 3 April)

Hutchison, Nigel

• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Tuesday, 16 April)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Position on issue 195 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: mime type for SOAP Encoding XML format (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: [Fwd: RE: [soapbuilders] Question about root (was Re: PEAR SOAP)] (Friday, 19 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Locally vs. Globally Scoped (Wednesday, 17 April)
• Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Issue 195: why not only specify the local name (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Issue 195: why not only specify the local name (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Monday, 8 April)
• Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Sunday, 7 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Sunday, 7 April)
• Re: FW: TBTF: Proposal for issue 196 (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: New (?) issue : SOAP module specifications (Tuesday, 2 April)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: issue #196 closed (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: issue #196 closed (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: XMLP Issue 193 Closed (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Issue #203 : First draft text (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Friday, 12 April)
• Re: Misunderstanding of SOAP 1.1 element spec (Friday, 12 April)
• Re: Issue #203 : First draft text (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Thursday, 11 April)
• [Fwd: attributes using soap encoding/RPC] (Thursday, 11 April)
• New issues? (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments on a read through of part 2 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 190: closed (default values) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: WSDL question (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• New issues (was: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: New (?) issue : SOAP module specifications (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)

Jim Dixon

• Re: HTTP vs. SOAP intermediaries (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: IP, TCP/UDP as XML App (Tuesday, 2 April)

John Ibbotson

• [xml-dist-app] <none> (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Remove TOC for Pt2 from Pt1 and Vice Versa ? (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 part 2 (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Comments on SOAP 1.2 part 2 (Monday, 8 April)

Joko Ruwhof

• New topic for XML forum (Wednesday, 3 April)

Jonathan Marsh

• Ann: Web Service Description Requirements published (Monday, 29 April)
• RE: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Monday, 22 April)

jones@research.att.com

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Joop Stringer

• Misunderstanding of SOAP 1.1 element spec (Friday, 12 April)

Joseph Hui

• RE: Is it possible? (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)

Joseph Reagle

• Encryption: Onward and Upward -- Your Response Needed (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Friday, 19 April)
• Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Wednesday, 17 April)
• SOAP headers for xmldsig and xenc (Wednesday, 3 April)

Joshua Allen

• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)

Keith Moore

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Marc Hadley

• TBTF streaming proposal (Monday, 29 April)
• Re: issue #196 closed (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: TBTF: DRAFT: revisions to MEP descriptions to address overlapping request response. (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Comments on a read through of part 2 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)

Mark Baker

• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing issue 201 (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• "A priori" and the default HTTP binding (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Friday, 12 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Thursday, 11 April)
• "Chameleon" (Thursday, 4 April)
• HTTP vs. SOAP intermediaries (Thursday, 4 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Tuesday, 2 April)
• SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 2 April)
• Re: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Monday, 1 April)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. action parameter (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Issue: HTTP transcoding [ was: What is W3C's position on RFC 3205? ] (Thursday, 11 April)
• Issue: HTTP transcoding [ was: What is W3C's position on RFC 3205? ] (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: New (?) issue : SOAP module specifications (Tuesday, 2 April)

Martin Duerst

• Re: Fwd: Moving exc-c14n forward: your response is needed! (Monday, 22 April)

Martin Gudgin

• Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken (Friday, 26 April)
• Re: SOAP Encoding Schema broken (Friday, 26 April)
• SOAP Encoding Schema broken (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Proposal for dealing with root (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Does EII represent an edge or node? (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Friday, 12 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments on a read through of part 2 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 part 2 (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 part 2 (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: New issues (was: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1) (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: SOAP headers for xmldsig and xenc (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: more Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)

mauryx@supereva.it

• Is it possible? (Thursday, 4 April)

Mike Dierken

• RE: sender/receiver ids transmitted within xml documents... (Thursday, 4 April)

Mountain, Highland M

• Email Binding Status (Tuesday, 9 April)

Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM

• Re: Issue #203 : First draft text (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Proposal for allowing xml:lang on faultstring (Thursday, 11 April)
• Re: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• RE: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Comments on a read through of part 2 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• Re: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 9 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Friday, 5 April)
• Comments from a Read-Through of Part 1 (Friday, 5 April)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• Re: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Thursday, 25 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• REST and SOAP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root (Wednesday, 24 April)
• [TBTF] Proposal on streaming of messages and request/responses (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Are QNames in Attribute Values Permitted as Identifiers? (Monday, 22 April)
• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: [Issue, March 20th 2002] Serializer vs. De-serializer (Saturday, 20 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Monday, 15 April)
• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Monday, 15 April)
• Re: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Sunday, 14 April)
• Re: Proposal for closing editorial issue 193 (Sunday, 14 April)
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Friday, 12 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 190: closed (default values) (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Resolution of Issue 191 (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Re: using xsi:type with the SOAP encoding rules (Wednesday, 3 April)
• Second Workshop on Industrial Experiences with Systems Software (WIESS '02) (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Tuesday, 2 April)
• RE: Issue 189: closed (Tuesday, 2 April)

Paul Prescod

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Friday, 19 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Pauline GUEZENNEC

• ICE, RSS, SOAP (Wednesday, 17 April)

Pete Hendry

• Re: [Fwd: RE: [soapbuilders] Question about root (was Re: PEAR SOAP)] (Saturday, 20 April)
• [Fwd: RE: [soapbuilders] Question about root (was Re: PEAR SOAP)] (Thursday, 18 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Issue 195: why not only specify the local name (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Issue 195: why not only specify the local name (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: Proposal for cleanup of RPC section (issue 195) (Sunday, 14 April)

Prasad Valmeti

• SOAP based NMS applications products information (Wednesday, 17 April)

Raw Celebs

• Exclusive Anna Kournikova Photos (Monday, 15 April)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: Position on issue 194 (Tuesday, 30 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Saturday, 27 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Wednesday, 24 April)
• Re: Issue 195: slightly updated simple proposal (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Monday, 22 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Monday, 8 April)
• Re: Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Wednesday, 3 April)

Roy T. Fielding

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 23 April)

Russell Butek

• AXIS beta 2 release is available (Tuesday, 30 April)

Scott Cantor

• RE: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)

Simon Fell

• Re: Summary of Issue 194 - encodingStyle (Tuesday, 23 April)
• Re: attributes using soap encoding/RPC (Monday, 22 April)

Tim Bray

• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Tuesday, 16 April)
• Re: FW: draft findings on Unsafe Methods (whenToUseGet-7) (Thursday, 1 January)

Tim Thompson

• attributes using soap encoding/RPC (Friday, 19 April)

Vinoski, Stephen

• RE: T is for Transfer (Monday, 1 April)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Wednesday, 24 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Tuesday, 23 April)
• RE: Providing a short name for single-request-response MEP (Friday, 19 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with issue 200: SOAPAction header vs. ac tion parameter (Thursday, 18 April)
• TBTF: DRAFT: revisions to MEP descriptions to address overlapping request response. (Wednesday, 17 April)
• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Tuesday, 16 April)
• RE: Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Monday, 15 April)
• Completing the tables SRR MEP description. (Friday, 12 April)
• RE: Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for issue 192) (Thursday, 11 April)
• Qualification of Fault children (was RE: Updated proposal for iss ue 192) (Wednesday, 10 April)
• RE: Updated proposal for issue 192 (Wednesday, 10 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Thursday, 4 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Faultactor or faultnode? (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: [TBTF] proposed edits for incorporating conneg feature for HT TP binding (Wednesday, 3 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Monday, 1 April)

Last message date: Tuesday, 30 April 2002 17:04:05 UTC