Re: Fallback for LCCA when <scxml> is included

On Feb 12, 2013, at 02:40 PM, Gavin Kistner <phrogz@me.com> wrote:
[...] Consider this document:

    <scxml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/07/scxml" version="1.0">
      <transition cond="In('a')" target="pass"/>
      <parallel id="p"><state id="a"/></parallel>
      <final id="pass"/>
    </scxml>
 
...which, I now see, is an invalid SCXML document, since <transition> elements are (oddly) not allowed on the <scxml> element itself.

This limitation prevents the problem originally described by this thread. Please feel free to ignore this thread, and accept my apologies for the noise.

(Apparently I really need to put in document level validation in my interpreter so that I stop spending time on hand-authored test cases that happen to be invalid. :p)