I agree with those statements. Education is what I came to the REST debate seeking given Paul Prescod's excellent posts and articles on the subject. What is possible, however, is that the strength of the debate may overcome the purpose, education, resulting in a weakened positition for all. A system that does not correspond to an architecture operates outside that architectural scope and that may be all that needs to be said. Beyond that, a concern will arise relative to the overlapping parts of these systems, that is, XML, URIs, HTTP, about new features that make it more difficult for either system to interoperate. Those are future decisions but will be problematic for the W3C and the TAG unless consensus is reached.

Acrimony is human; yet it has a way of breaking down the negotiation process, and over time, making parties irrelevant to a process. SOAP is out there and it is working. Education consists of making it explicit where it does not correspond to the architecture and therefore, is not warrantied by it. When one faces a lawsuit for liquidated damages, such de jure documentation is useful for all parties.

len