Keith, I just wrote a paragraph on Scripting News that might illuminate the
cause of some of the confusion.

"Even though there's confusion, we're still shipping SOAP apps, the things
that others call Web Services. You gotta know we were ready for this. For
example, we shipped a SOAP interface for MailToTheFuture over the weekend.
The work was mostly in docs and a table of glue scripts for Frontier and
Radio scripters. All we had to do to implement the SOAP interface was put an
address to the table of XML-RPC handlers in user.soap.rpcHandlers. One line
of code turned our XML-RPC support into SOAP support."

Unlike many of the other people on this list, we have been actively
developing Web Services for three years, even longer if you count the work
we did on the Macintosh, much of which translates directly to scripting over
the Internet.

All along we planned to do this bridge, that would allow all of our work to
be on the SOAP network. That's why we appear to be such hard-asses when it
comes to BDG. We will bend to the SOAP 1.1 spec, we have already done it,
the BDG process has forced us to look carefully at what we're doing, and
once we see how it has to be, to know what broke and then we set about to do
the breaking, however painful it may be. We did this with named parameters
over the weekend. Believe me we have a small mountain of breakage to deal
with as a result. But don't cry for me Agentina, we asked for it.

We are, emphatically, not a startup. Frontier has been in development for 13
years this month. Before we even consider adding new functionality beyond
what we already do, we must make our work relevant and provide our users and
developers a clear path onto SOAP that works and provides the benefit of
interop with other implementations, otherwise there is no reason for us to
be doing SOAP at all.

Maybe this helps explain why there's confusion.

Dave