>>>contaminated? In wich way? I don't see your point.
>>
>>Use of HTTP headers to carry information that should go in the SOAP envelope (cf. Michel's first article on this issue).
>
>Well I think is clear that they are different things

It's the second time I get this reply and I'm still missing the point of it! I reckon I must be the one to blame.

>>I wouldn't insist in SOAP3 designation. There is not such a thing, even in MS terminology.
>
>Till now is SOAP3 Beta, I suppose this will be the final name but I don't care if MS calls it SOAPX7 or whaterver, the fact is that is there.

Ok, don't take my word for good. Go to a SOAP or XML forum, start saying you've been working with SOAP 3 and see what you get back. And no, till now it has not been named SOAP3 Beta.

>>Is this a better way? I don't think so. If we do not aim at interoperability, why would we use SOAP in the first place?
>
>So what you will use instead of SOAP? What's wrong with SOAP?

You're twisting the issue. If you want to publish a Web Service, you must use SOAP. If you use SOAP, you should observe standardized guidelines. If you say that your Web Service requires, from the consumer side, to use a particular tool from a vendor and to use the underlying protocol as an information carrier, then you're failing to comply to basic guidelines.