SCXML Alternative Notation

>From Working Draft 13:

> <go to="s" on="e" if="x>1" />
> Would such a change of naming conventions be an improvement? Could
> it serve to attract more new users to SCXML? We solicit feedback on
> this matter.

Count another "YES" vote for this idea.  Not only is it more compact
and readable, but it also avoids inconsistent use of the "target"
attribute between <send> and <transition>.  It may also help to make
more explicit the distinction between an event (as used with <send>
and <raise>) and the event designator used for transitions.

Best regards,


NOTICE: - This message including any attachments is intended only for the 
use of the designated recipient(s) named above and may contain 
confidential information protected by law.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of 
this information is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and 
delete the original message including any attachments.

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 13:54:00 UTC