- From: Barnett, James <James.Barnett@aspect.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:35:39 -0400
- To: <lager@ling.gu.se>
- Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>, "Serge Voloshenyuk" <serge_voloshenyuk@yahoo.com>
Torbjorn, This is an interesting edge case. We are currently reviewing the semantics of <final> states and will include this in our deliberations. - Jim -----Original Message----- From: Torbjörn Lager [mailto:torbjorn.lager@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:31 PM To: Barnett, James Cc: www-voice@w3.org; Serge Voloshenyuk Subject: Re: allowing <onentry> and <onexit> inside <final> I think that this is a good idea. But what about the <onexit> children of a <final> which is a child of <scxml>? Will they ever be run? Is the concept of 'exiting' applicable to this state? Regards, Torbjörn On 4/5/07, Barnett, James <James.Barnett@aspect.com> wrote: > > > > > We have provisionally decided to accept the following change request for > inclusion in the next draft of the spec. The <final> element will be > allowed to have <onentry> and <onexit> children: > > From Serge Voloshenyuk: > > Hi > It could be useful to have <onentry> and <onexit> in <final> state. > <onentry>: for send results > <onexit>: for data cleanups. > > Regards, Serge. > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 20:35:45 UTC