xml-dist-app@w3.org from March 2002 by date

Monday, 1 April 2002

• SOAP, HTTP, PEP Mark Baker
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Larry Masinter
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Mark Baker

Sunday, 31 March 2002

• RE: Issue 189: closed Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mark Baker
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Larry Masinter
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Larry Masinter

Friday, 29 March 2002

• sender/receiver ids transmitted within xml documents... Don_Crowley@jbhunt.com

Saturday, 30 March 2002

• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

Friday, 29 March 2002

• RE: T is for Transfer Scott Cantor
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Christopher Ferris
• RE: T is for Transfer Jim Dixon
• HTTP intermediaries and SOAP Mark Baker
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• RE: T is for Transfer Mike Dierken
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Ray Whitmer
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Christopher Ferris
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Christopher Ferris
• RE: T is for Transfer Scott Cantor
• RE: T is for Transfer Vinoski, Stephen
• Re: T is for Transfer Mark Baker
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• RE: T is for Transfer Mountain, Highland M

Thursday, 28 March 2002

• RE: T is for Transfer Eugene Kuznetsov
• RE: T is for Transfer Scott Cantor
• Attribute items on SOAP elements Murali Janakiraman
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: T is for Transfer Scott Cantor
• RE: T is for Transfer Appleton, Pete M
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Appleton, Pete M
• RE: T is for Transfer Appleton, Pete M
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• RE: T is for Transfer Mountain, Highland M
• Re: T is for Transfer Mark Baker
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Mark Baker
• Issue 192 & R803 Mark Baker
• RE: T is for Transfer Joseph Hui
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Christopher Ferris
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• T is for Transfer Mark Baker
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Ray Whitmer
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Ray Whitmer
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Appleton, Pete M
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mark Baker
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mark Baker
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Yves Lafon
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mountain, Highland M
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Appleton, Pete M
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mark Baker
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mountain, Highland M
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Mark Baker
• New (?) issue : SOAP module specifications Glen Daniels
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Appleton, Pete M
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion David Crowley
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Christopher Ferris
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion Mark Baker
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion David Crowley
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Larry Masinter
• Summarizing the last 192 discussion Mark Baker
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Glen Daniels

Wednesday, 27 March 2002

• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Christopher Ferris
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Grahame Grieve
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Mark Baker
• Re: What is SOAP? Mark Baker
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) Christopher Ferris
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Issue 189: closed noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 Yves Lafon
• Re: What is SOAP? noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issue 189: closed Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Issue 195: soap-rpc:result Herve Ruellan
• Re: What is SOAP? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: What is SOAP? Christopher Ferris
• Re: What is SOAP? Christopher Ferris
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 Christopher Ferris
• Re: [Fwd: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")] Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2") Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2") Jean-Jacques Moreau
• [Fwd: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")] Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Issue 189: closed Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: What is SOAP? Mark Baker
• RE: Issue 189: closed noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: What is SOAP? Mark Baker
• Re: What is SOAP? noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: What is SOAP? noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 Mark Baker
• RE: What is SOAP? Edwin Khodabakchian
• Re: What is SOAP? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: What is SOAP? Mark Baker
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 Mark Baker
• RE: What is SOAP? Champion, Mike

Tuesday, 26 March 2002

• What is SOAP? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: XML protocol comparisons Sutar Suhas-ESS067
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: The reason for roots? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: The reason for roots? noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 Mountain, Highland M
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 Mountain, Highland M
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Issue 189: closed Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

Monday, 25 March 2002

• RE: Propose resolution of issue 191 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Propose resolution of issue 191 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Proposal for dealing with issue 187 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Propose resolution of issue 191 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Proposal for resolving issue 110 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jacek Kopecky
• Re: issue #192 positions Mark Baker
• Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: issue #192 positions Christopher Ferris

Saturday, 23 March 2002

• Issues 12 & 192 Mark Baker
• RE: issue #192 positions Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

Friday, 22 March 2002

• Re: issue #192 positions Mark Baker
• Re: issue #192 positions Mark Baker
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Christopher Ferris
• Re: issue #192 positions Christopher Ferris
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding David Fallside
• Re: issue #192 positions noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: issue #192 positions Fred Carter
• Re: Issue #12: HTTP Status Codes 500 v 200 Arnaud Durand
• Re: New issue: HTTP binding/status code Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: New issue: HTTP binding/status code Williams, Stuart
• Re: The reason for roots? Martin Gudgin
• RE: New issue: HTTP binding/status code Williams, Stuart
• Re: issue #192 positions Herve Ruellan
• Re: The reason for roots? Jacek Kopecky
• issue #192 positions Christopher Ferris
• RE: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data form at Jacek Kopecky
• New issue: HTTP binding/status code Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: The reason for roots? Martin Gudgin
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: The reason for roots? Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Christopher Ferris
• Re: The reason for roots? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: The reason for roots? Martin Gudgin
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

Thursday, 21 March 2002

• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• REPOSTED: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A David Fallside
• RE: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data form at Mike Dierken
• RE: Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Dan Brickley
• Re: The reason for roots? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jacek Kopecky
• Re: The reason for roots? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jacek Kopecky
• The reason for roots? Martin Gudgin
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Proposal for resolving issue 163: attribute id not a real ID Jacek Kopecky
• Fielding on SOAP Mark Baker

Wednesday, 20 March 2002

• minutes of 20 feb 2002 and 13 mar 2002 Yves Lafon
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Asir S Vedamuthu
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance Hurley, Oisin
• Re: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data format Jacek Kopecky
• SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data format Dan Brickley
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Simon Fell
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Herve Ruellan
• Re: Clarification on use of SOAP attributes throughout a SOAP message Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• AXIS Beta 1 is available Russell Butek
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Mark Baker

Tuesday, 19 March 2002

• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Christopher Ferris
• RE: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Williams, Stuart
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Mark Baker
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 Christopher Ferris
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Jacek Kopecky
• Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Mark Baker
• Clarification on use of SOAP attributes throughout a SOAP message Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• RE: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Proposal for resolution to issue 190 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• RE: HTTP binding & faultHint Williams, Stuart
• Re: Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Mark Baker
• Re: Question on envelope parameter on SOAP media type Mark Baker
• Question on envelope parameter on SOAP media type Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

Monday, 18 March 2002

• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Jacek Kopecky
• primer comments Nilo Mitra (EMX)
• HTTP binding & faultHint Mark Baker
• Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok Mark Baker
• Re: Usage Scenarios review Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Usage Scenarios review John Ibbotson
• Re: John Ibbotson
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: New issue Jean-Jacques Moreau

Sunday, 17 March 2002

• Protocols Mark Baker

Friday, 15 March 2002

• Re: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios John Ibbotson

Sunday, 17 March 2002

• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Williams, Stuart

Saturday, 16 March 2002

• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Dan Brickley
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Dan Brickley

Friday, 15 March 2002

• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Williams, Stuart
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jacek Kopecky
• New issue re recognizing faults Mark Baker
• Re: New issue Jean-Jacques Moreau
• New issue Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Herve Ruellan
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Williams, Stuart
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Herve Ruellan
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Williams, Stuart
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Williams, Stuart
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Williams, Stuart
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Herve Ruellan
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker

Thursday, 14 March 2002

• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Tim Ewald
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Bob Cunnings
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mountain, Highland M
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Williams, Stuart
• Re: minutes of 6 march 2002 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Christopher Ferris
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding Jacek Kopecky
• Need new MEP for SMTP binding Mark Baker

Wednesday, 13 March 2002

• SOAP 1.2 Assertions and Tests document Hurley, Oisin
• minutes of 6 march 2002 Yves Lafon
• Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance Hurley, Oisin
• ISSUE 56 : Draft resolution Glen Daniels
• Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance Hurley, Oisin
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 Williams, Stuart
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Williams, Stuart

Tuesday, 12 March 2002

• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Jean-Jacques Moreau
• Re: Email binding issue Jean-Jacques Moreau
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Appleton, Pete M
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Christopher Ferris
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 Williams, Stuart

Monday, 11 March 2002

• XML Schema Tools Pansy Alley

Sunday, 10 March 2002

• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Jacek Kopecky
• Usage Scenarios review Jacek Kopecky

Monday, 11 March 2002

• Re: [R505][i54] No a priori knowledge Requirement Mark Baker
• Final Proposal for Issue 41 amr.f.yassin@philips.com

Saturday, 9 March 2002

• [R505][i54] No a priori knowledge Requirement Paul Denning
• A topic-linked REST/WS discussion Rich Salz

Friday, 8 March 2002

• RE: "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP Nilo Mitra (EMX)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Williams, Stuart
• Re: New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 amr.f.yassin@philips.com
• Re: whats a xml rpc protocol? Martin Gudgin
• Re: "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP Jacek Kopecky
• "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP Naresh Agarwal

Thursday, 7 March 2002

• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 Jacek Kopecky
• Draft Resolution for Issue 41 amr.f.yassin@philips.com
• Re: Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols Jacek Kopecky
• Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols Naresh Agarwal
• whats a xml rpc protocol? kharesourabh

Wednesday, 6 March 2002

• FW: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios Gaertner, Dietmar
• Issue 82 : Proposed resolution Don Mullen
• RE: Request to fix use of "transport" Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
• Re: Uniqueness, id and ref Martin Gudgin
• Re: Email binding issue noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Uniqueness, id and ref Christopher Ferris
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: REST example Mark Baker
• Uniqueness, id and ref Martin Gudgin
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Rich Salz
• RE: Request to fix use of "transport" Eamon O'Tuathail
• New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages. Williams, Stuart
• Re: REST example Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Getting no REST Williams, Stuart
• Re: Email binding issue Mark Baker
• REST example Mark Baker

Tuesday, 5 March 2002

• Ïðèãëàøåíèå CSC@w3.org
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: Getting no REST Mark Baker
• Re: Email binding issue Mark Baker
• Re: Email binding issue Jacek Kopecky
• RE: Email binding issue Mountain, Highland M
• RE: Getting no REST Williams, Stuart
• Email binding issue Mark Baker
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios Gaertner, Dietmar
• Getting no REST Mark Baker
• RE: Interoperability Rebecca Dias
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? Williams, Stuart
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Interoperability Gema García Fernández

Monday, 4 March 2002

• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Request to fix use of "transport" Mark Baker
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Wsdl interoperability question Marc
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? Williams, Stuart
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Marc Hadley
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Rich Salz
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Jacek Kopecky
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Christopher Ferris
• RE: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute Jacek Kopecky
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. Jacek Kopecky
• Issue 180: Parameter ordering John Ibbotson
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? Williams, Stuart

Sunday, 3 March 2002

• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. Martin Gudgin
• xsi:type for multiref targets. Tim Ewald
• RE: xsi:type for multiref targets. Tim Ewald
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• When is a Fault a Fault? Mark Baker
• Re: SOAP schema errors Martin Gudgin

Saturday, 2 March 2002

• SOAP schema errors Gaertner, Dietmar
• RE: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. Martin Gudgin
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. Simon Fell

Friday, 1 March 2002

• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. Martin Gudgin

Last message date: Sunday, 31 March 2002 22:34:07 UTC