- From: Andreas Gansen <c64zottel@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:27:23 +0100
- To: www-voice@w3.org
Hello David, Jim and List, I am so sorry for not responding. I promise to do much better in the future. Your reasoning is completely valid and understood. My only concern is the semantic about onexit/onentry. Even if it is well defined in the current version, I can't deny that it is a bit unnatural to call a second onexit block My suggestions to combine functionality and modularity would be as follows: <onentry> <action> Code of the first onentry block </action> <action> ... 2nd entry block </action> </onentry> Variation: Define actions in LLCA (or separate file for re-usage): <actions> <action id="a1"> Codeblock </action> <action id="a2"> Codeblock </action> </actions> We just reference to the actions: <onentry> <action id="a1" /> <action id="a2" /> </onentry> From here we have a couple of advantages: - Code block may be reused in the same file - We may define all code blocks for onentry/onexit in separate file and share this between different statecharts. - The semantic is a bit cleaner (Maybe that is a personal view) I am very aware of my inexperience when it comes to xml/statecharts and I am fine with what ever solution you come up with. Again, I am sorry for not responding. That is not my general being. All the best, Andreas Gansen
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 09:28:14 UTC