Encoded vs Literal

Paul Downey argues that the difference between encoded and literal web services is in "interoperability", adding

Three years on, and Databinding tools used by so many to process Web services are still struggling to interoperate with literal documents, and Schema authors are clueless if their description is going to work with their customers’ toolkits.

Having used xmlrpc, I can say encoding is nice and extremely enticing. If all you care about is marshalling objects like values, then you don’t have to worry about Tim Ewald’s argument against SOAP encoding. Are there other reasons why the basic profile didn’t try to proffer SOAP encoding as a simpler marshalling format that satisfies 99% of use cases?