Thank you, that's a wise move indeed! - Torbjörn On 5/11/07, RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com> wrote: > Torbjörn, > > We in the SCXML working group are actually right now in the middle > of abstracting out the expression language to make it easy to define > SCXML interpreters with things like ecmascript+e4x. The current > thought is to require XPath but allow the use of others easily. > > RJ > > --- > RJ Auburn > CTO, Voxeo Corporation > tel:+1-407-418-1800 > > > > On May 11, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Torbjörn Lager wrote: > > > > > In the January 2006 draft I read: > > > > "We have not determined how the XML trees that compose the data model > > will be specified, accessed, and modified. (Candidates include the DOM > > API, E4X, and XPath.)" > > > > In the current draft one gets the impression that you selected XPath. > > May I ask why you made this choice? Looking at it now, I get the > > impression that E4X would have been a better choice, since it seems > > more tightly integrated with ECMAScript. Is there any chance that you > > will revisit this issue? > > > > - Torbjörn > > >Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 11:48:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 11 May 2007 11:48:29 GMT