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

Abhishek

• RE: Use of XML Messaging in Multicasting? (Sunday, 27 October)
• Use of XML Messaging in Multicasting? (Sunday, 27 October)

Asir S Vedamuthu

• Proposal for Issue 363 - RPC return accessor (Monday, 14 October)
• RE: Issue 364 proposal (Wednesday, 9 October)

Bob Cunnings

• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Thursday, 17 October)

Camilo Arbelaez

• Proposal for Issue 385 (AF conformance clause) (Monday, 28 October)
• FW: Proposal for Issue 385 (AF conformance clause) (Tuesday, 29 October)
• RE: Proposal for Issue 385 (AF conformance clause) (Tuesday, 29 October)

Carine Bournez

• Proposal for issue 390 (Sunday, 27 October)

Champion, Mike

• Updates to feature list based on disposition of Last Call issues (Tuesday, 29 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 327 (Monday, 7 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 327 (Thursday, 3 October)

Christopher B Ferris

• RE: Proposal for issue 390 (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 390 (Sunday, 27 October)
• FYI: WS-I Basic Profile Working Group Draft published (Thursday, 17 October)

Collin

• Anybody alive? since I haven't received any mail for a long period of time. (Friday, 11 October)

David Fallside

• Re: Issue 294 Proposed resolution - mark II (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Re: Issue 392: any one remembers? (Tuesday, 29 October)
• IMPLEMENTERS NOTE: Re: updated implementation summary (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Issues 368 and 369 Proposal (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 327 (Monday, 7 October)
• Proposal for issue 327 (Thursday, 3 October)

David Orchard

• RE: Proposal for issue 390 (Tuesday, 29 October)
• RE: proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec) (Thursday, 24 October)

Don Mullen

• Alternate SOAP 1.2 email binding (Friday, 25 October)

Ed Roskos

• Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body (Tuesday, 15 October)

Ed.Morassut@bmo.com

• SOAP 1.2 Specification and confusion around Subcode (Friday, 4 October)

Eugene Kuznetsov

• RE: Use of XML Messaging in Multicasting? (Sunday, 27 October)

gdaniels@macromedia.com

• Text for issue 300/359 (Thursday, 17 October)

Glen Daniels

• Text for issue 300/359 (Thursday, 17 October)

Graham Klyne

• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Monday, 21 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• SOAP intermediaries (Some unprocessed headers should stay) (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Tuesday, 15 October)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: Text for issue 300/359 (Monday, 28 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Tuesday, 22 October)
• RE: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions (Tuesday, 22 October)
• Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions (Monday, 21 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries? (Monday, 7 October)

Herve Ruellan

• Re: Issue 389 proposal (Friday, 18 October)
• [AF] Proposal for Issue 387 (Friday, 18 October)
• [AF] Proposal for issue 386 resolution (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 1 (Thursday, 17 October)
• Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Monday, 14 October)
• Proposal for issue 277 - part 1 (Monday, 14 October)

Jacek Kopecky

• Requirements check, sections 4.6 and 4.7 (Thursday, 31 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Issue 389 proposal (Friday, 18 October)
• Issue 389 proposal (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Issue 364 proposal (Wednesday, 9 October)
• Possibly editorial problem in Data Model and Encoding (Wednesday, 9 October)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Issue 392: revised proposal (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Issue 392: draft proposals (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 394: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Issue 392: any one remembers? (Monday, 28 October)
• Forwarding table (Monday, 28 October)
• Proposal for issue 394: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 25 October)
• Re: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions (Wednesday, 23 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: updated implementation summary (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Issues 368 and 369 Proposal (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries? (Tuesday, 8 October)

John Ibbotson

• Resolution of Issue 359 (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Proposed resolution text for Issue 359 (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Additions to Usage Scenarios (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Issue 367 Proposal (Monday, 14 October)
• Issues 368 and 369 Proposal (Monday, 14 October)

John J. Barton

• Re: proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec) (Thursday, 24 October)

Marc Hadley

• Issue 388 Proposed Resolution (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Issue 294 Proposed resolution - mark II (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Proposed Resolution: Issue 294 - "message exchange context out of nowhere?" (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 1 (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries? (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)

Mark Baker

• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries? (Monday, 7 October)

Mark Jones

• proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec) (Thursday, 24 October)

Martin Gudgin

• RE: Yet another proposal for issue 355 (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Yet another proposal for issue 355 (Wednesday, 30 October)
• Updated proposal for Issue 355 ( and 262 ) (Tuesday, 29 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Issue 364 proposal (Wednesday, 9 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)

Nilo Mitra (EUS)

• proposal for issue 391 (how IDREF URIs are dereferenced) (Friday, 25 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed header s should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• Re: Proposal for issue 394: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Tuesday, 29 October)
• Re: Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body (Tuesday, 22 October)
• RE: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions (Tuesday, 22 October)
• Re: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions (Tuesday, 22 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 21 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2 (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Issues 368 and 369 Proposal (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: SOAP intermediaries (Some unprocessed headers should stay) (Wednesday, 16 October)
• RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Tuesday, 15 October)
• Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Issues 368 and 369 Proposal (Monday, 14 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)

PGoel

• Welcome to my hometown (Friday, 4 October)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: Proposal for issue 327 (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 327 (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231) (Monday, 7 October)
• Re: Proposal for issue 327 (Monday, 7 October)

Rich Salz

• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Thursday, 17 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)
• RE: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Tuesday, 1 October)

Vinoski, Stephen

• WWW2003 Call for Papers (Friday, 4 October)

Yves Lafon

• updated implementation summary (Friday, 18 October)
• Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay (Wednesday, 16 October)

Last message date: Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:30:02 UTC