Requirements check, sections 4.6 and 4.7
Issue 392: revised proposal
Resolution of Issue 359
Yet another proposal for issue 355
Proposed resolution text for Issue 359
Updated proposal for Issue 355 ( and 262 )
Issue 392: draft proposals
Updates to feature list based on disposition of Last Call issues
Proposal for Issue 385 (AF conformance clause)
Additions to Usage Scenarios
Issue 388 Proposed Resolution
Issue 294 Proposed resolution - mark II
Issue 392: any one remembers?
Proposal for issue 390
Use of XML Messaging in Multicasting?
Alternate SOAP 1.2 email binding
proposal for issue 391 (how IDREF URIs are dereferenced)
Proposal for issue 394: Some unprocessed headers should stay
proposal for issue 393 (concrete packaging spec)
Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions
- Re: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions
- RE: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions
- RE: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
Proposed Resolution: Issue 294 - "message exchange context out of nowhere?"
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
IMPLEMENTERS NOTE: Re: updated implementation summary
Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
updated implementation summary
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
[AF] Proposal for Issue 387
[AF] Proposal for issue 386 resolution
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
- Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headersshould stay
Issue 389 proposal
Text for issue 300/359
FYI: WS-I Basic Profile Working Group Draft published
Text for issue 300/359
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed header s should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
RE: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
SOAP intermediaries (Some unprocessed headers should stay)
Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body
- Re: Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body
- Re: Question regarding uniqueness of soap Fault in body
Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
- Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay
Proposal for Issue 363 - RPC return accessor
Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
- RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2
Proposal for issue 277 - part 1
Issue 367 Proposal
Issues 368 and 369 Proposal
Anybody alive? since I haven't received any mail for a long period of time.
Issue 364 proposal
Possibly editorial problem in Data Model and Encoding
Re: Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231)
RE: Are gateways SOAP intermediaries?
WWW2003 Call for Papers
SOAP 1.2 Specification and confusion around Subcode
Welcome to my hometown
Proposal for issue 327
- RE: Proposal for issue 327
- Re: Proposal for issue 327
- RE: Proposal for issue 327
- Re: Proposal for issue 327