Monday, 30 September 2002
Friday, 27 September 2002
Thursday, 26 September 2002
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
- [soap] standard publishing data?
- Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231)
- Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
- Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231)
Wednesday, 25 September 2002
- RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- RE: Issue 302 (Again)
- RE: Issue 302 (Again)
- RE: Issue 302 (Again)
- Proposal for various Infosetisms
- Re: Issue 302 (Again)
- Re: Issue 304: Define One-way MEP
Tuesday, 24 September 2002
- XML Protocol WG's Last Call for Review of SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- org.w3c.dom.Element/Document as Web Service parameter
Monday, 23 September 2002
Tuesday, 24 September 2002
Friday, 20 September 2002
- Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Restructuring of section "HTTP Binding/Introduction"
Thursday, 19 September 2002
Wednesday, 18 September 2002
- Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
Tuesday, 17 September 2002
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- RE: Encoding examples (was: Issue 282)
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Closure of issue 373
- Re: LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Updated proposal for Issue 302
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Re: Updated proposal for Issue 302
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
Monday, 16 September 2002
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- [announce] XMLSPY 5 Released - New WSDL Editor
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: New LC issue: Ambiguity: SOAP body or SOAP body child element
- RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Encoding examples (was: Issue 282)
- RE: Issue 298: RPC array representation unneccesary
- Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Updated proposal for Issue 302
- Re: WG home page: update with link to Attachment editor's copy
- Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- WG home page: update with link to Attachment editor's copy
- New LC issue: Ambiguity: SOAP body or SOAP body child element
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
Sunday, 15 September 2002
Friday, 13 September 2002
Thursday, 12 September 2002
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- Proposal for issue 370: QA - No definition of SOAP Processor
- Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: Issue 358: Length of URIs
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Metu SAVIMBI karl
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
Wednesday, 11 September 2002
- LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- SOAP Attachment problem
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- Re: New AFTF draft.
Tuesday, 10 September 2002
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- Re: New AFTF draft.
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- RE: New AFTF draft.
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: New AFTF draft.
Monday, 9 September 2002
- Re: Issue 231 options
- Re: Issue 231 options
- Re: Issue 231 options
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: Issue 231 options
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- RE: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- RE: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
Sunday, 8 September 2002
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
Saturday, 7 September 2002
- RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
- Re: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
- Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
Friday, 6 September 2002
- Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
Thursday, 5 September 2002
- RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- Re: Issue 231 options
- Issue 231 options
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed
Wednesday, 4 September 2002
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?
- Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Proposal for issue 319: Clarification that HTTP does define a base URI
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
Tuesday, 3 September 2002
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- Re: RESTful
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- RE: RESTful
- RE: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- Re: SOAP schema bugs?
- RESTful
- RE: Issue 361: itemType v childItemType
- RE: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
Monday, 2 September 2002
- Issue 362a: ref v idref
- RE: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- Issue 362b: SHOULD v MUST wrt id/idref errors
- Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- Re: Issue 366: Generics ( again )
- Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
Sunday, 1 September 2002
- Issue 366: Generics ( again )
- Issue 365: Generics
- Issue 361: itemType v childItemType
- Re: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId
- Re: Issue 299: RPC return value accessor too complex
- Re: Issue 234: 'unbounded' v '*' in arraySize
- Re: Issue 303: fault for broken array attributes?