Recap of yesterday's events. I asked for some light, showing the value of XML-RPC. In return what I got was heat, i.e., more SOAP bashing.

Daniel Berlinger continues to believe that type information is required for interop.  At some point I simply have to point to the interop results and move on.  Those that participate in these activities can easily demonstrate their level of interop.  Against both typed and untyped endpoints.

Sjoerd Vissher managed to see past the XML.  I don't want to be bothered with XML. I want the arguments to be native data structures, and the same goes for the return values. Both serverside and clientside.  Exactly.  Want to see it in action?  How about Radio calling .Net?  Or how about Java calling Radio?  Sure, there is XML inside, but it really is as easy to use as that orange XML coffee mug on your web site.

Kevin Altis nails it.  As a general rule, XML should be produced and consumed by tools and never seen or edited by humans. It is for interchange, stupid.

The comic relief of the day was when Dave throws a stone at a competitor and a mutual friend threw two back.  This, in my mind, also represents the next cable we need to bootstrap.  Trusting intermediaries and sending keys are difficult problems that IMHO must be addressed before commercial web services is a viable option.  The first step is to agree on a common vocabulary for things we already have, as I described here.  In case anybody is wondering, the first I saw of this spec was the same day everyone else did.  But if it meets my standards for inclusive interop, then I foresee a BDG in it's future.

But the true gem of the day also has to go to Dave.  As long as humanity survives there will be another iteration. But when you find something that has some of that magic, go for it, don't be a stick in the mud, and don't pay too much attention to people who are.  Onward.

  7:46:28 AM