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

Anish Karmarkar

• Re: review of SOAP 1.2 Part 1 diffs from 11-Apr w/r/t assertions doc (Monday, 13 May)
• Re: review of SOAP 1.2 Part 1 diffs from 11-Apr w/r/t assertions doc (Sunday, 12 May)
• [Fwd: Conformance: New html version 4.2] (Tuesday, 7 May)

Anne Thomas Manes

• RE: soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Thursday, 23 May)
• soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Thursday, 23 May)

Bob Cunnings

• Re: soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Thursday, 23 May)

Carroll, Tom

• [WSAWG ISSUE] wsa-I0001 "what is a priori knowledge?" (Wednesday, 1 May)
• [WSAWG ISSUE] wsa-I0002 "Should SOAP envelope include the target URI?" (Wednesday, 1 May)

Champion, Mike

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Wednesday, 29 May)

Christopher Ferris

• Re: review of SOAP 1.2 Part 1 diffs from 11-Apr w/r/t assertions doc (Sunday, 12 May)
• review of SOAP 1.2 Part 1 diffs from 11-Apr w/r/t assertions doc (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Monday, 6 May)

Dan Brickley

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)

David Fallside

• Issue 205 resolution (Tuesday, 14 May)
• FYI: XMLP WG Charter (Tuesday, 7 May)

David Orchard

• TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Tuesday, 7 May)

Doug Davis

• Re: Transport Binding Reviews. (Tuesday, 7 May)

Eugene Kuznetsov

• RE: array encoding in SOAP (Friday, 3 May)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Wednesday, 29 May)
• Proposal for dealing with other HTTP status codes (Wednesday, 29 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Tuesday, 7 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and enco dingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• RE: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Monday, 6 May)
• Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Wednesday, 1 May)
• RE: Transport Binding Reviews (Wednesday, 1 May)

Hutchison, Nigel

• RE: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Thursday, 16 May)

Jacek Kopecky

• Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Friday, 17 May)
• Re: Resolution of issue 195 (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Re: Resolution of issue 195 (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Re: Summary of discussions on dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Thursday, 9 May)
• Re: Summary of discussions on dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Thursday, 9 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: array encoding in SOAP (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Thursday, 2 May)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Thursday, 2 May)

Joshua Allen

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)

Marc Hadley

• Re: soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Friday, 24 May)
• Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: Summary of discussions on dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Thursday, 9 May)
• Summary of discussions on dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Wednesday, 8 May)

mario.jeckle@daimlerchrysler.com

• (CfP) Web Services -- Research, Standardization, and Deployment (Wednesday, 22 May)

Mark Baker

• Re: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with other HTTP status codes (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• Re: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Wednesday, 29 May)
• [ij@w3.org: Proposed TAG Finding: Internet Media Type registration, consistency of use] (Wednesday, 22 May)
• Re: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding avai lable (Tuesday, 21 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Tuesday, 14 May)
• Re: Updated Email Binding (Tuesday, 14 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Tuesday, 7 May)
• 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: Proposal on use of HTTP Versions (Friday, 3 May)

Mark Nottingham

• Re: Proposal on use of HTTP Versions (Friday, 3 May)

Martin Gudgin

• Re: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Monday, 6 May)

Mike

• Re: SOAP port number (Tuesday, 30 April)

Mike Dierken

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)

Mountain, Highland M

• Updated Email Binding (Tuesday, 14 May)

Murali Janakiraman

• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and enco dingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• RE: array encoding in SOAP (Thursday, 2 May)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)
• email problems (Thursday, 30 May)
• [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Wednesday, 29 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: 2xx/202 and "a priori" (Wednesday, 8 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Tuesday, 7 May)
• Re: Proposal for dealing with root, top-level multi-refs and encodingStyle (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Monday, 6 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Friday, 3 May)
• Re: Proposal on use of HTTP Versions (Friday, 3 May)
• RE: Proposal on use of HTTP Versions (Friday, 3 May)
• Proposal on use of HTTP Versions (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: array encoding in SOAP (Thursday, 2 May)

Pete Hendry

• Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Thursday, 16 May)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Thursday, 16 May)
• Re: Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Thursday, 16 May)
• Rewording of section 4.1.2 based upon resolution of issue 195 (Wednesday, 15 May)
• Resolution of issue 195 (Tuesday, 14 May)

Robert van Engelen

• Re: array encoding in SOAP (Friday, 3 May)

Scott Cantor

• RE: soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Thursday, 23 May)
• RE: soapenv namespace and the fault child elements (Thursday, 23 May)

Tim Bray

• Re: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding avai lable (Monday, 20 May)
• [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Tuesday, 14 May)
• Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding available (Wednesday, 15 May)

Vinoski, Stephen

• ANN: Middleware for Web Services CFP (Wednesday, 8 May)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Friday, 31 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: Proposal for dealing with other HTTP status codes (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Thursday, 30 May)
• RE: [getf] Proposal for Web-friendly representation of RPC's in SOAP (Wednesday, 29 May)
• RE: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding avai lable (Tuesday, 21 May)
• RE: [WhenToUseGet-7] Re: TAG document: SOAP HTTP GET binding avai lable (Thursday, 16 May)
• RE: Transport Binding Reviews (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Transport Binding Reviews (Thursday, 2 May)
• Re: Transport Binding Reviews. (Thursday, 2 May)
• RE: Issue: Problem with ProcedureNotPresent fault subcode (Thursday, 2 May)

Last message date: Friday, 31 May 2002 19:35:21 UTC