Implementing CR26

I have completed implementing CR26, but it was a bit more involved that we anticipated when closing the issue in August.
 
We expected a change to 4.4.1, and possibly 4.4.2. In the end I had to change 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4, as follows:
 
4.4.1 now contains the text:
 
 In the absence of a wsaw:Action attribute on a WSDL input element where a non-empty SOAPAction value is specified, the value of the [action] property for the input message is the value of the SOAPAction specified. If the wsaw:Action attribute is absent, and SOAPAction is not specified, or is empty, then the default pattern is used. 
 
I added the second sentence to make explicit the idea that the default only applies when there is neither a wsaw:Action, nor a non-empty SOAPAction. Note the specification of non-empty, per CR28.
 
4.4.2 now contains the text:
 
In the absence of an explicitly specified value for the [action] property (see section 4.4.1 Explicit Association), the following pattern is used in WSDL 2.0 documents to construct a default action for inputs and outputs. 
 
I thought it wise to refer to 4.4.1, rather than state the rules again (after all, the previous version mis-stated the rule, and a change to 4.4.1 could reintroduce that problem again).
 
4.4.3 now contains the text:
 
The property value is either explicitly specified, as described in section 4.4.1 Explicit Association, or the default value computed following the rules from section 4.4.2 Default Action Pattern for WSDL 2.0.
 
Again, a reference to 4.4.1, in place of a mis-statement of the rule.
 
4.4.4 now contains the text:
 
In the absence of an explicitly specified value for the [action] property (see section 4.4.1 Explicit Association), the following pattern is used to construct a default action for inputs and outputs.
 
Once more, a reference to 4.4.1, in place of a mis-statement of the rule.
 
Are people happy with this resolution of CR26, or have I exceeded the terms of my editorial licence?
 
Tony Rogers