Marc Portier wrote: > The following might seem like nagging but I do share Sylvain's > eagerness to get names really right, so I'm wide open for other > alternatives and views...
I don't have a vote either :-) but I agree - names are a very important detail, so I'll stick my nose in... > >> [C] A state of the controller is called by: > >> > >> <map:call state=""> > >> <map:parameter name="x" value="y"/> > >> </map:call> > > > > > > We don't call states in this sense. We continue > > a continuation ;-) > > actually I think we continue with the 'use-case' > > or we continue the 'interaction' > > > I guess <map:continue continuation="{1}"/> is bad. > > > > <map:continue src="{1}"/> > > or > > <map:continue id="{1}"/> > > > > Still <map:continue state-id=".." /> might make sense as well? What about <map:continue from="..."/> I agree with your analysis completely ... personally I find map:continue with attribute of id or source or state sounds jarring - it sounds like you would be continuing a state, or continuing an id, which is wrong, as you say. It doesn't read smoothly in the sense of a regular English sentence, whereas "continue from ..." reads very naturally. The point is that you continue a FLOW (a use-case as you say), and that you continue the flow FROM a particular point which must be identified by this attribute. "Continue" is the active (verb form) word which identifies the activity (noun form would be continuation). "From" is a word that identifies the role that the rhino-continuation or FSM-state plays in this activity, without having to give it some overly-specific name (state, continuation, location, point, etc) My 2c Con