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

andrea

• large soap attachment (Monday, 23 September)

Andrew Layman

• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)
• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)

Ashish Sharma

• SOAP Attachment problem (Wednesday, 11 September)

Bob Cunnings

• Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name? (Thursday, 26 September)

Christopher B Ferris

• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Tuesday, 10 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes (Monday, 2 September)

Dan Brickley

• RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Monday, 2 September)

David C. Fallside

• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Monday, 16 September)

David Fallside

• XML Protocol WG's Last Call for Review of SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Tuesday, 24 September)

David Orchard

• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)

Elliotte Rusty Harold

• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)
• Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes (Monday, 2 September)

Fabrizio.Agostinelli@corenet.it

• org.w3c.dom.Element/Document as Web Service parameter (Tuesday, 24 September)

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

• RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Wednesday, 25 September)
• RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Friday, 20 September)
• RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Wednesday, 18 September)
• RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Tuesday, 17 September)
• RE: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Tuesday, 17 September)
• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: New LC issue: Ambiguity: SOAP body or SOAP body child element (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Sunday, 15 September)
• Proposal for issue 370: QA - No definition of SOAP Processor (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: Issue 358: Length of URIs (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding? (Wednesday, 11 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Wednesday, 4 September)
• Proposal for issue 319: Clarification that HTTP does define a base URI (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states (Tuesday, 3 September)
• Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states (Tuesday, 3 September)

Herve Ruellan

• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Monday, 16 September)
• [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Monday, 2 September)

Jacek Kopecky

• Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name? (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding? (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Updated proposal for Issue 302 (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 231 options (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 231 options (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Monday, 9 September)
• RE: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Sunday, 8 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Friday, 6 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Friday, 6 September)
• Issue 231 options (Thursday, 5 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Thursday, 5 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Wednesday, 4 September)
• Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Monday, 2 September)
• Re: Issue 366: Generics ( again ) (Monday, 2 September)
• Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Monday, 2 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId (Sunday, 1 September)
• Re: Issue 299: RPC return value accessor too complex (Sunday, 1 September)
• Re: Issue 234: 'unbounded' v '*' in arraySize (Sunday, 1 September)
• Re: Issue 303: fault for broken array attributes? (Sunday, 1 September)

Jean-Jacques Moreau

• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Friday, 27 September)
• Restructuring of section "HTTP Binding/Introduction" (Friday, 20 September)
• Encoding examples (was: Issue 282) (Monday, 16 September)
• Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document (Monday, 16 September)
• WG home page: update with link to Attachment editor's copy (Monday, 16 September)
• New LC issue: Ambiguity: SOAP body or SOAP body child element (Monday, 16 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Friday, 13 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Friday, 13 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states (Tuesday, 3 September)

John Ibbotson

• Closure of issue 373 (Tuesday, 17 September)

John J. Barton

• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Monday, 9 September)

Joseph Reagle

• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Monday, 9 September)

karl

• Metu SAVIMBI karl (Thursday, 12 September)

Kees van Dieren

• [soap] standard publishing data? (Thursday, 26 September)

Larry E. Kim

• [announce] XMLSPY 5 Released - New WSDL Editor (Monday, 16 September)

Marc Hadley

• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Friday, 20 September)
• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Thursday, 19 September)
• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Wednesday, 18 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Wednesday, 18 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies (Monday, 16 September)
• Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Friday, 6 September)
• Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Wednesday, 4 September)
• Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states (Tuesday, 3 September)
• Re: SOAP schema bugs? (Tuesday, 3 September)

Mark Baker

• Re: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Friday, 6 September)
• Re: RESTful (Tuesday, 3 September)
• RESTful (Tuesday, 3 September)

Martin Gudgin

• RE: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• RE: Issue 302 (Again) (Wednesday, 25 September)
• RE: Issue 302 (Again) (Wednesday, 25 September)
• Proposal for various Infosetisms (Wednesday, 25 September)
• Issue 302 (Again) (Tuesday, 24 September)
• RE: Issue 298: RPC array representation unneccesary (Monday, 16 September)
• Updated proposal for Issue 302 (Monday, 16 September)
• RE: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Monday, 9 September)
• Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Sunday, 8 September)
• RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding (Sunday, 8 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Saturday, 7 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Issue 361: itemType v childItemType (Tuesday, 3 September)
• RE: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId (Tuesday, 3 September)
• Issue 362a: ref v idref (Monday, 2 September)
• RE: Issue 326: Qualify attributes (Monday, 2 September)
• Issue 362b: SHOULD v MUST wrt id/idref errors (Monday, 2 September)
• Issue 326: Qualify attributes (Monday, 2 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Monday, 2 September)
• Issue 366: Generics ( again ) (Sunday, 1 September)
• Issue 365: Generics (Sunday, 1 September)
• Issue 361: itemType v childItemType (Sunday, 1 September)

Mike Dierken

• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Thursday, 5 September)

Nilo Mitra (EUS)

• RE: Encoding examples (was: Issue 282) (Tuesday, 17 September)

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

• Re: Proposal for various Infosetisms (Monday, 30 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 26 September)
• Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231) (Thursday, 26 September)
• RE: Issue 302 (Again) (Wednesday, 25 September)
• Re: Issue 302 (Again) (Wednesday, 25 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: Updated proposal for Issue 302 (Tuesday, 17 September)
• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Tuesday, 17 September)
• RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Friday, 13 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Thursday, 12 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Thursday, 12 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• RE: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: New AFTF draft. (Wednesday, 11 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Tuesday, 10 September)
• RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Tuesday, 10 September)
• Re: Issue 231 options (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 231 options (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Monday, 9 September)
• Re: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding (Saturday, 7 September)
• Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body (Saturday, 7 September)
• Issue 292: Analysis and proposal (Friday, 6 September)
• RE: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Thursday, 5 September)
• Re: LC Issue 250: closed, editorial: text changed (Thursday, 5 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Wednesday, 4 September)
• Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature (Wednesday, 4 September)
• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)
• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)

Ray Whitmer

• Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name? (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231) (Thursday, 26 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Tuesday, 17 September)
• Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments (Monday, 16 September)
• Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional? (Friday, 6 September)
• Re: Issue 231 options (Thursday, 5 September)

Rich Salz

• RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221 (Tuesday, 3 September)

Williams, Stuart

• RE: RESTful (Tuesday, 3 September)
• RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding (Tuesday, 3 September)

Yves Lafon

• Re: Issue 304: Define One-way MEP (Wednesday, 25 September)
• Re: WG home page: update with link to Attachment editor's copy (Monday, 16 September)

Last message date: Monday, 30 September 2002 17:57:46 UTC