RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the def inition of Web service"

> 
> That is the whole point, we want plain XML over HTTP to be 
> part of W3C Web
> Services architecture. This is actually to software vendors' 
> benefits as
> well -- users would be able to mmigrate to SOAP if needed.

What exactly do you want the WSA document to say about "plain XML over
HTTP"?  

<hh>First, we want the WSA formally recognize "plain XML over HTTP" as part
of the architecture. </hh>

We could (I think) note in the text or an appendix what the WSDL description
of that type of service is, making XML over plain HTTP a "minimal web
service" in the nomenclature I proposed yesterday (or "basic" or whatever
less perjorative term we want to supply). Still, we would have to note that
the actual form of the content is completely unconstrained, or rather
application-defined. Thus app <-> app communication relies on ad hoc / out
of band definition of both the syntax and the semantics.  We would also have

<hh>This sounds reasonable. We could define a minimum set of app <-> app
communication patterns here. </hh>

to note that any extensions to provide reliable messaging, security,
correlation of multi-part services, etc. (see the Requirements document) are
also ad hoc / application-defined.  

<hh>That is ok.</hh>

I'm happy to say something in the WSA document that genuflects over "plain
XML over HTTP" to blesses it as a "web service" design pattern for those who
have application-defined syntaxes and don't need reliable messaging,
correlation, choreography, security, late binding, etc.  But we can't avoid
the "but, on the other hand, that doesn't support most of the WSA
requirements ... users SHOULD migrate to SOAP when these become important in
their application context" or something. 

<hh>That is ok too. As long as we can point the its relationship with SOAP
and those features. 
</hh>