>>If SOAP BDG *conflicts* with any of these standards, it's a bug (IMHO).
If it specifies a *subset* of one of these standards, it's OK. Is this your
intent?

Yes, and drop the imho part. We're defining an easy path through the
standards, not trying to replace or obfuscate the standards.

About the list of pledges, thanks for volunteering. I'd like to include in
the soapware.org directory if possible.

BTW, it's worth mentioning that the soapware.org directory can be included
in other directories. It's available in OPML as well.

http://www.soapware.org/discuss/reader$4.opml

Some days I think if only the IBM/Microsoft guys would 2click on that,
they'd find that there's a simple XML format that can do wonderful things to
simplify all the work they're doing on aggregators and metadata, and it's
easy to write user-oriented authoring tools (we have one). UDDI could be a
four-screen spec too. Maybe we'll go there next. ;->

To Josh, there's a philosophy here. It's not Microsoft's philosophy, but
with the power of your developers, if we could get you guys to come out and
play openly, you could tap into the experience we have and vice versa. This
is the argument we've been having. Josh reads our specs, he knows what we're
doing, so it's puzzling to me that he would impugn evil intent. I work so
openly, the ideas just must be strange. How could I be willing to give them
something for free without somehow poisoning them?

Dave