[soap] standard publishing data?
Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
- Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
- Re: Issue 231 draft resolution - what attribute name?
Proposed resolution on using schemas to default itemType and nodeClass (subissue of 231)
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
Proposal for various Infosetisms
Re: Issue 304: Define One-way MEP
XML Protocol WG's Last Call for Review of SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
org.w3c.dom.Element/Document as Web Service parameter
large soap attachment
Issue 302 (Again)
Restructuring of section "HTTP Binding/Introduction"
Closure of issue 373
Re: LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
[announce] XMLSPY 5 Released - New WSDL Editor
Encoding examples (was: Issue 282)
RE: Issue 298: RPC array representation unneccesary
Updated proposal for Issue 302
WG home page: update with link to Attachment editor's copy
New LC issue: Ambiguity: SOAP body or SOAP body child element
Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- Re: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
- RE: Issue 374: use of term "part" in attachment feature document
Proposal for issue 370: QA - No definition of SOAP Processor
RE: Issue 358: Length of URIs
[AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- RE: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
- Re: [AF] relative URIs for attachments
Metu SAVIMBI karl
LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
SOAP Attachment problem
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.
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: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
- Re: Issue 302: Graph edges that do not terminate
RE: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
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: 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: Issue 325: XML Schema encoding
Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
- Re: Issue 292: Analysis and proposal
Issue 231 options
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
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?
- 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?
Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
- Re: Comments on SOAP 1.2 Attachment Feature
Proposal for issue 319: Clarification that HTTP does define a base URI
Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- RE: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
- Re: Proposal for issue 305: The SOAP Response MEP doesn't need sending+receiving states
RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
- RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221
Re: SOAP schema bugs?
RE: Issue 292: Which fault code takes precedence BadArguments or MissingId
Issue 362a: ref v idref
Issue 362b: SHOULD v MUST wrt id/idref errors
Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- Re: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
- RE: Issue 326: Qualify attributes
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: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- 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: Table 17 (Spec part 2, 7.5.1.2) discrepancies
- RE: 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 301: Universal Transport Binding
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding
- RE: Issue 301: Universal Transport Binding