Re: Hidden anchors in SCXML specification - can I refer to them?

Jim Barnett <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:38:47 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.web.voice
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040005030504020206020104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Those anchors are artifacts of the spec-generation script we use, and I 
have no idea how stable they have been across drafts.  However the SCXML 
1.0 Recommendation document will not be modified once it is published, 
so it would be safe to refer to anchors in it.

  If we do an SCXML 1.1 or 2.0, it will be a completely different 
document and any part of the 1.0 specification may be modified or removed.

- Jim

On 7/16/2015 5:28 AM, Stefan Radomski wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I implemented some more functions to validate a given SCXML document 
> and would like to refer to the specific paragraphs when complaining 
> about violations at runtime. I see that there are quite a few anchors 
> available in the actual SCXML recommendation that are not linked but 
> would be available to refer to per URL fragment, e.g. 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/#N10AD3. Can I expect these to be 
> consistent among releases of the standard?
>
> Best regards
> Stefan


--------------040005030504020206020104
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    Those anchors are artifacts of the spec-generation script we use,
    and I have no idea how stable they have been across drafts.  However
    the SCXML 1.0 Recommendation document will not be modified once it
    is published, so it would be safe to refer to anchors in it.<br>
    <br>
     If we do an SCXML 1.1 or 2.0, it will be a completely different
    document and any part of the 1.0 specification may be modified or
    removed.<br>
    <br>
    - Jim<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/16/2015 5:28 AM, Stefan Radomski
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:22171F0B-C4CE-4ECF-BCAE-2B4DC321DA7A@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      Hi there,
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">I implemented some more functions to validate a
        given SCXML document and would like to refer to the specific
        paragraphs when complaining about violations at runtime. I see
        that there are quite a few anchors available in the actual SCXML
        recommendation that are not linked but would be available to
        refer to per URL fragment, e.g. <a moz-do-not-send="true"
          href="http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/#N10AD3" class="">http://www.w3.org/TR/scxml/#N10AD3</a>.
        Can I expect these to be consistent among releases of the
        standard?</div>
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">Best regards</div>
      <div class="">Stefan</div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040005030504020206020104--