UML22 — inconsistent description

There is an inconsistent description about determining conflicting transitions of a internal transition. According to sector Conflicting transitions, p.492: "Two transitions are said to conflict if they both exit the same state", two internal transitions in the same configration won't be conflict, However, P.492 says "Each orthogonal region in the active state configuration that is not decomposed into orthogonal regions can fire at most one transition as a result of the current event" There are two possible explanation: 1.Internal transition is treated orthogonal to the container region: thus, any two internal transitions in different state won't be confilict. 2.Internal transition is treated as self-transition without entry/exit action: thus, internal transition will be conflict with transitions which are conflict with corresponding self-transition. And a orthogonal region fires at most one transition(either internal or non-internal) an example: A and B are two states of top state. A is superState of AA AA is superState of AAA and AAB t1 is an internal transition of A t2 is an internal transition of AA t3 is an external transition from AAA to AAB t4 is an external transition from AA to B does t1 and t2 conflict? t2 and t3? which should be chosen for firing?

Discussion
An internal transition IS a self-transition. It does not exit or enter the state to which it is attached. Internal transitions
belong to states and not to regions, as seemed to be implied by the issue summary. This is explicitly stated in the
specification. From the point of view of firing rules, they are no different than for any other transition. If there are
conflicts (and, there CAN be conflicts between two internal transitions), they are resolved the same way as all other
conflicts based on the firing rules for such cases. Hence, the ambiguity discussed in the summary of the issue does not
exist.
(However, after reading the text, it seems that there is no explicit statement on how the issue of conflicting transitions
of the same priority is resolved. Presumably, this is one of those “intentionally left unspecified” cases; i.e., it is an
implementation choice. But, this is a different and more general issue that needs to be dealt with separately.)
Disposition: Closed - No Change