Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

I would note that there is an other solution:
-add the following entries in the table C.2 Fragment Identifiers of Part
1:
Construct: in
x: {name} property of interface
y: {name} property of operation

Construct: out
x: {name} property of interface
y: {name} property of operation

-point your action attribute to the constructs in, out, and fault
provided in table C.2. (you might want to have in-fault, and out-fault
in table C.2 instead of fault).

- do the binding to SOAP as your proposed.

In other words, I'm proposing not to reinvent a URI mapping, but improve
and reuse the existing one.

Philippe