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

amr.f.yassin@philips.com

• Final Proposal for Issue 41 (Monday, 11 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Friday, 8 March)
• Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Thursday, 7 March)

Appleton, Pete M

• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)

Arnaud Durand

• Re: Issue #12: HTTP Status Codes 500 v 200 (Friday, 22 March)

Asir S Vedamuthu

• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Wednesday, 20 March)

Bob Cunnings

• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)

Champion, Mike

• RE: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)

Christopher Ferris

• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)
• Re: Uniqueness, id and ref (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)

CSC@w3.org

• Ïðèãëàøåíèå (Tuesday, 5 March)

Dan Brickley

• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Thursday, 21 March)
• SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data format (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Saturday, 16 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Saturday, 16 March)

David Crowley

• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)

David Fallside

• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• REPOSTED: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)
• REPOSTED: Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Thursday, 21 March)

Don Mullen

• Issue 82 : Proposed resolution (Wednesday, 6 March)

Don_Crowley@jbhunt.com

• sender/receiver ids transmitted within xml documents... (Friday, 29 March)

Eamon O'Tuathail

• RE: Request to fix use of "transport" (Wednesday, 6 March)

Edwin Khodabakchian

• RE: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)

Eugene Kuznetsov

• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)

Fred Carter

• RE: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)

Gaertner, Dietmar

• FW: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios (Wednesday, 6 March)
• SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios (Tuesday, 5 March)
• SOAP schema errors (Saturday, 2 March)

Gema García Fernández

• Interoperability (Tuesday, 5 March)

Glen Daniels

• New (?) issue : SOAP module specifications (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• ISSUE 56 : Draft resolution (Wednesday, 13 March)

Grahame Grieve

• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 27 March)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: Issue 189: closed (Sunday, 31 March)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issue 189: closed (Wednesday, 27 March)
• RE: Issue 189: closed (Tuesday, 26 March)
• RE: Propose resolution of issue 191 (Monday, 25 March)
• Proposal for dealing with issue 187 (Monday, 25 March)
• Proposal for resolving issue 110 (Monday, 25 March)
• RE: issue #192 positions (Saturday, 23 March)
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Thursday, 21 March)
• RE: Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model (Thursday, 21 March)
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• RE: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Clarification on use of SOAP attributes throughout a SOAP message (Tuesday, 19 March)
• RE: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Proposal for resolution to issue 190 (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Question on envelope parameter on SOAP media type (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model (Tuesday, 19 March)
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Friday, 8 March)
• RE: Request to fix use of "transport" (Wednesday, 6 March)

Herve Ruellan

• Issue 195: soap-rpc:result (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)

Hurley, Oisin

• RE: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 20 March)
• SOAP 1.2 Assertions and Tests document (Wednesday, 13 March)
• Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 13 March)
• Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Wednesday, 13 March)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• What is SOAP? (Tuesday, 26 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Tuesday, 26 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Tuesday, 26 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• RE: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data form at (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Thursday, 21 March)
• Proposal for resolving issue 163: attribute id not a real ID (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data format (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Monday, 18 March)
• Re: Usage Scenarios review (Monday, 18 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Sunday, 10 March)
• Usage Scenarios review (Sunday, 10 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Thursday, 7 March)
• Re: Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols (Thursday, 7 March)
• Re: REST example (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: Email binding issue (Tuesday, 5 March)
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• RE: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Monday, 4 March)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: Issue 189: closed (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: [Fwd: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")] (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2") (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2") (Wednesday, 27 March)
• [Fwd: Issue Gudge General a): closed ("split part 2")] (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Tuesday, 26 March)
• Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: New issue: HTTP binding/status code (Friday, 22 March)
• New issue: HTTP binding/status code (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of SOAP attributes throughout a SOAP message (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Inconsistencies in SOAP 1.1 part 1 Versioning model (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Monday, 18 March)
• Re: New issue (Monday, 18 March)
• Re: New issue (Friday, 15 March)
• New issue (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: minutes of 6 march 2002 (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)
• Re: Email binding issue (Tuesday, 12 March)

Jim Dixon

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)

John Ibbotson

• Re: Usage Scenarios review (Monday, 18 March)
• Re: (Monday, 18 March)
• Re: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios (Friday, 15 March)
• Issue 180: Parameter ordering (Monday, 4 March)

Joseph Hui

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)

kharesourabh

• whats a xml rpc protocol? (Thursday, 7 March)

Larry Masinter

• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Monday, 1 April)
• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Sunday, 31 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Sunday, 31 March)
• RE: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Thursday, 28 March)

Marc

• Wsdl interoperability question (Monday, 4 March)

Marc Hadley

• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)

Mark Baker

• SOAP, HTTP, PEP (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Monday, 1 April)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Sunday, 31 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• HTTP intermediaries and SOAP (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Issue 192 & R803 (Thursday, 28 March)
• T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Monday, 25 March)
• Issues 12 & 192 (Saturday, 23 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• Fielding on SOAP (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Question on envelope parameter on SOAP media type (Tuesday, 19 March)
• HTTP binding & faultHint (Monday, 18 March)
• Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Monday, 18 March)
• Protocols (Sunday, 17 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Saturday, 16 March)
• New issue re recognizing faults (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: [R505][i54] No a priori knowledge Requirement (Monday, 11 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: REST example (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: Email binding issue (Wednesday, 6 March)
• REST example (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: Email binding issue (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: Getting no REST (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Email binding issue (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Getting no REST (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Request to fix use of "transport" (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• When is a Fault a Fault? (Sunday, 3 March)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)

Martin Gudgin

• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Friday, 22 March)
• The reason for roots? (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Saturday, 16 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: whats a xml rpc protocol? (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: Uniqueness, id and ref (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Uniqueness, id and ref (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Sunday, 3 March)
• Re: SOAP schema errors (Sunday, 3 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Saturday, 2 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Friday, 1 March)

Mike Dierken

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: SOAP Encoding / Data Model as a (REST?) stand-alone data form at (Thursday, 21 March)

Mountain, Highland M

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (Tuesday, 26 March)
• RE: Issues 12 & 192 (Tuesday, 26 March)
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• RE: Email binding issue (Tuesday, 5 March)

Murali Janakiraman

• Attribute items on SOAP elements (Thursday, 28 March)

Naresh Agarwal

• "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP (Friday, 8 March)
• Soap Bindlings with Asynchronous Protocols (Thursday, 7 March)

Nilo Mitra (EMX)

• primer comments (Monday, 18 March)
• RE: "RPC" and "Messaging" style of SOAP (Friday, 8 March)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• RE: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Saturday, 30 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Saturday, 30 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• RE: Issue 189: closed (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• RE: Issue 189: closed (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: What is SOAP? (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: The reason for roots? (Tuesday, 26 March)
• RE: Propose resolution of issue 191 (Monday, 25 March)
• Propose resolution of issue 191 (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: Issue 61: external payload reference/S+A (Monday, 25 March)
• Re: issue #192 positions (Friday, 22 March)
• Re: Clarifying optionality of HTTP binding (Thursday, 21 March)
• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190 (Tuesday, 19 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• Re: Issue 36: Clarify nature of conformance (Thursday, 14 March)
• Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)
• Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages. (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: Email binding issue (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Sunday, 3 March)
• RE: Proposal for issue 78: RPC structs and Encoding root attribute (Saturday, 2 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Saturday, 2 March)

Pansy Alley

• XML Schema Tools (Monday, 11 March)

Paul Denning

• [R505][i54] No a priori knowledge Requirement (Saturday, 9 March)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: Issue 192 & R803 (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Summarizing the last 192 discussion (Thursday, 28 March)

Rebecca Dias

• RE: Interoperability (Tuesday, 5 March)

Rich Salz

• A topic-linked REST/WS discussion (Saturday, 9 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Wednesday, 6 March)
• Re: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)

Russell Butek

• AXIS Beta 1 is available (Wednesday, 20 March)

Scott Cantor

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: T is for Transfer (Thursday, 28 March)

Simon Fell

• Re: Clarification on use of encodingStyle attribute (Wednesday, 20 March)
• Re: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Saturday, 2 March)

Sutar Suhas-ESS067

• RE: XML protocol comparisons (Tuesday, 26 March)

Tim Ewald

• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Thursday, 14 March)
• xsi:type for multiref targets. (Sunday, 3 March)
• RE: xsi:type for multiref targets. (Sunday, 3 March)

Vinoski, Stephen

• RE: T is for Transfer (Friday, 29 March)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: New issue: HTTP binding/status code (Friday, 22 March)
• RE: New issue: HTTP binding/status code (Friday, 22 March)
• RE: Issue 192; HTTP binding looks ok (Tuesday, 19 March)
• RE: HTTP binding & faultHint (Tuesday, 19 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Sunday, 17 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3 (Friday, 15 March)
• RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding (Thursday, 14 March)
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 (Wednesday, 13 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Wednesday, 13 March)
• RE: Final Proposal for Issue 41 (Tuesday, 12 March)
• RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41 (Friday, 8 March)
• New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages. (Wednesday, 6 March)
• RE: Getting no REST (Wednesday, 6 March)
• RE: Getting no REST (Tuesday, 5 March)
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? (Tuesday, 5 March)
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)
• RE: When is a Fault a Fault? (Monday, 4 March)

Yves Lafon

• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (long) (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: Issues 12 & 192 (Wednesday, 27 March)
• minutes of 20 feb 2002 and 13 mar 2002 (Wednesday, 20 March)
• minutes of 6 march 2002 (Wednesday, 13 March)

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