Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

+1 to Philippe's friendly amendment to Sanjiva's proposal.

Philippe's suggestion is essentially just that we use the existing URI 
mapping that we've already defined (thanks Arthur!) instead of inventing a 
new one.  And I believe it already handles the case of inherited operations.



At 03:42 PM 7/8/2004 -0400, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

>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

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273