- From: Barnett, James <James.Barnett@aspect.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:16:14 -0400
- To: <www-voice@w3.org>, Torbjörn Lager <torbjorn.lager@gmail.com>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 14:17:29 UTC
We have provisionally decided to reject the following change request. Now that we have decided to allow <onentry> and <onexit> as children of <final>, there are legitimate uses for multiple <final> children since they may contain different executable content. >From Torbjorn Lager: Since two <final> states can differ only in ID (since they have no children) it doesn't make much sense to allow more than one <final> as a child of <scxml>.
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 14:17:29 UTC