<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>C'mon people, it's a NOTE!</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mpowell/archive/2004/09/29/235909.aspx</link><description>I wander over to some of the other Web services sites once in awhile and see what they are saying. At IBM's site I saw this article . It has a lot of similarities to my article , and has some good info in it (I like mine better but I'm probably biased</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title> Matt Powell C mon people it s a NOTE | Cellulite Creams</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mpowell/archive/2004/09/29/235909.aspx#9720881</link><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:49:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9720881</guid><dc:creator> Matt Powell C mon people it s a NOTE | Cellulite Creams</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=8673"&gt;http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=8673&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=9720881" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>Its just a note</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mpowell/archive/2004/09/29/235909.aspx#238418</link><pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:46:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:238418</guid><dc:creator>Simon Fell &gt; Its just code</dc:creator><description>Matt Powell has a big hullabaloo about DIME and SwA only being a w3c note and people should stop moaning about the poor support etc for them. Errr, hello, earth to Matt, SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 are also only W3C notes. Microsoft are largely responsible for the current mess in soap attachments, first they backed SwA, no wait, use DIME instead that's much better, no wait, we were just kidding, MTOM is the king really. As I see it, Matt and Co are the last folks should be complaining about the treatment they're getting, I think they're getting off way too light.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=238418" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: C'mon people, it's a NOTE!</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mpowell/archive/2004/09/29/235909.aspx#236730</link><pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:236730</guid><dc:creator>Harris Reynolds</dc:creator><description>SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 are Notes too and became de facto standards because all the big players implemented them.  SwA would likely have been the same except MS was not behind it.  The primary Java WS vendors implemented it.   That is probably where the article was coming from if you take off the rose colored glasses.  I do agree however that MTOM will be a good thing.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=236730" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>