I've responded to just to the TAG list. Let's try to have this discussion in 1 list only.

The reason that SOAP remains and grows at the W3C is because it and related specifications are heavy and responsible users of web machinery, and the membership of the W3C has given strong endorsement of Web Services development occuring at the W3C. I had hoped to stay on the technical merits of things, but you've openned the Pandora's box of Process. As you're prepared to go there, I am compelled to follow.

For the W3C to NOT do Web Services, it would mean that many members of the W3C - as at least represented at the web services workshop and the 64 paper submissions - would be ignored. And that W3C Process would be ignored. We have already had this debate, and the W3C Team and Membership have created the Web Services Activity, Descriptions, and Architecture Groups. And the W3C will create more Web Services Working Groups. The W3C has a well-defined process, and it was followed.

I don't consider myself or my company to be marketing consultant or being part of mass hysteria. The fact that the customers that are doing web services and using web services products don't feel a strong need to use HTTP (while using URIs, XML and much of HTTP) in a manner that you like, shows where any hysteria on this issue lies.

I find it interesting that you feel comfortable being part of the TAG at the W3C, which was voted on by the W3C Members, but you are uncomfortable with Web Services as-is at the W3C, also voted on by W3C Members. And if the Web Services folks don't do what you think is right, they should just all go somewhere else regardless of the process that got us where we are. I'd observe that in the TAG elections, 3 of the 5 elected members are members of the SOAP WG. I interpret this as yet another plank in the mandate that web services at the W3C is important to the membership.

I'm prepared to continue discussion and gain understanding of yours and others views - and I've repeatedly demonstrated that - but let's not ignore what the member companies have expressed. They can change their mind I guess, but I frankly don't see that going over well on ac-forum. Again, I'd like avoid the process question and focus on the technical merits as befits TAG discussions.

Cheers, Dave