RE: Problem with Enter States (renamed from W3C process)

Ah yes, I see what you mean.  That is a valid transition and the algorithm won't handle it correctly.  I'll have to think about this a bit.  In addDescendentStatesToEnter I think we handle this case correctly for parallel states, because we check if any descendent is already on the list before adding each default entry child.  Your example shows that we may need to do this for compound states as well.    You're right that one way to do it would be to filter the targets, removing any that are ancestors of others.

I'll think about this a bit and send an update around.


-          Jim

From: chris nuernberger [mailto:cnuernber@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:54 AM
To: VBWG Public (www-voice@w3.org)
Subject: Problem with Enter States (renamed from W3C process)

Exactly the problem I talked about.  The transition itself isn't invalid.  The fix is easier than I thought; ensure that if a transition has multiple target that none of them derive from another one of them.  If such a condition does exist, take the most derived target.

Chris

--
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson