W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-multimodal@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [EmotionML] Additional implementation feedback and Rec publication (was Re: [EmotionML] implementation release and feedbacks)

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 03:21:41 +0900
Message-ID: <52D974B5.5050106@w3.org>
To: Alexandre Denis <alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
CC: Patrick Gebhard <patrick.gebhard@dfki.de>, Felix Burkhardt <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>, Marc Schröder <marcschroeder108@gmail.com>, Roddy Cowie <r.cowie@qub.ac.uk>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, gerhard.fobe@s2009.tu-chemnitz.de, Edmon Begoli <ebegoli@gmail.com>, "christian@becker-asano.de (christian@becker-asano.de)" <christian@becker-asano.de>, kazemzad@usc.edu, Tim Llewellynn <tim.llewellynn@nviso.ch>, "www-multimodal@w3.org" <www-multimodal@w3.org>
Hi Alexandre,

Happy New Year!  And very sorry for the big delay.
I have been travelling (business travels :) for a while.

Could you please see inline below?

On 12/16/2013 06:43 PM, Alexandre Denis wrote:
> Hello all,
> yes sure, but since I don't see the new specification, I can only trust
> you that the (small) mistakes are corrected. As for the schemas,

Thanks!

>>[5]http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml.__xsd
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.xsd>
>>[6]http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml->-fragments.xsd
>
> The only difference I see with the schemas stored in our implementation
> is the required status of the version attribute of the <emotionml> tag,
> and it's possible I altered the schema myself because of the lack of the
> version in http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml. It is also important to
> fix the version attribute on this document, otherwise every emotionml
> document referring to these vocabularies will fail to pass validation (I
> had to manually disable the corresponding assertion check in the code),

OK.  We'll see the detail of the problem and fix the issue of
version handling.

Thanks!

Kazuyuki


>
> best regards,
> Alexandre
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org
> <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alexandre, Debbie, Felix, Gerhard, Patrick, Marc, Roddy and all,
>
>     Thank you very much for your EmotionML implementations!  And I am very
>     sorry I did not respond to you earlier.  It seems my original message
>     did not go out due to some trouble.
>
>     As you know, there were the following two features which were not
>     explicitly listed on the EmotionML Implementation Report Plan [a].
>
>     ------------------------------__----------------------------
>     Two features not listed on the Implementation Report Plan:
>     ------------------------------__----------------------------
>     Feature1:
>        In Section 2.4.1 of the spec [b], there is a feature "The end value
>        MUST be greater than or equal to the start value", which is not
>        checked in the Implementation Report.
>
>     Feature2:
>        In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [b], there is a feature "a typical use
>        case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into some other
>        markup", which is not checked in the Implementation Report.
>
>     However, according to the responses so far, we have already
>     got the following implementations for the above features.
>
>     ------------------------------__------------------
>     Implementation status of the above two features:
>     ------------------------------__------------------
>
>     Feature1: 3 implementations
>     - Gerhard Fobe:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0000.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0000.html>
>     - Alexandre Denis:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0005.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0005.html>
>     - Patrick Gebhard:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0006.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0006.html>
>
>     Feature2: 4 implementations
>     - Gerhard Fobe:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0000.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0000.html>
>     - Debbie Dahl:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0003.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0003.html>
>     - Alexandre Denis:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0005.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0005.html>
>     - Patrick Gebhard:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/__0006.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Nov/0006.html>
>
>     As I reported in October [c], we have already fixed typos in the spec
>     and added necessary clarifications to it.  Also we have fixed the
>     errors in the EmotionML schema.
>
>     So I would like to confirm that it is the time for us all to go ahead
>     and publish EmotionML as a W3C Recommendation.
>
>     Alexandre (as the original commenter), is that OK by you?
>
>     [a] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2012/emotionml-irp/
>     <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2012/emotionml-irp/>
>     [b] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/>
>     [c]
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013Oct/__0010.html
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013Oct/0010.html>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Kazuyuki
>
>
>     On 11/08/2013 04:52 AM, Patrick Gebhard wrote:
>
>         Dear Felix,
>
>         I've updated ALMA (a DFKI EmotionML implementation) last October
>         in esp.
>         these two features, see attachment. Maybe my email got lost.
>
>         Anyway, Feature 1: pass, Feature 2: pass.
>
>         Best
>         Patrick
>
>         Am 07.11.2013 um 18:16 schrieb Marc Schröder
>         <marcschroeder108@gmail.com <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:marcschroeder108@__gmail.com
>         <mailto:marcschroeder108@gmail.com>>>:
>
>             Hi all,
>
>             DFKI's implementation has not-impl for both of these (unless
>             it has
>             been changed since I left).
>
>             Looking forward to seeing EmotionML become a Rec!
>
>             Best,
>             Marc
>
>
>             On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, <Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de
>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de
>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>>> wrote:
>
>                  Dear implementers of EmotionML
>                  To make a long story short: Alexandre Denis of Loria did a
>                  thorough review and implementation of EmotionML and
>             found several
>                  flaws that we managed to fix, now two issues are still
>             open and we
>                  need to know from you whether your implementation
>             supports two
>                  features, namely:
>                  >Feature1:
>                  >    In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a
>             feature "The end
>                  value
>                  >    MUST be greater than or equal to the start value",
>             which is not
>                  >    checked in the Implementation Report.
>                  >
>                  >Feature2:
>                  >    In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a
>             feature "a
>                  typical use
>                  >    case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into
>             some other
>                  >    markup", which is not checked in the
>             Implementation Report.
>
>                  Please respond to this mail until 25th of November and
>             state for
>                  both features whether it's "pass", "fail"  or "not-impl"
>                  Please send the answer to the public mailing list:
>             www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>>
>
>                  EmotionML will then soon become a real recommendation!
>
>                  Thanks a lot,
>                  Felix
>
>                  >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>                  >Von: Kazuyuki Ashimura [mailto:ashimura@w3.org
>             <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>
>                  <mailto:ashimura@w3.org <mailto:ashimura@w3.org>>]
>                  >Gesendet: Montag, 28. Oktober 2013 07:57
>                  >An: alexandre.denis@loria.fr
>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>;
>             www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>
>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>>
>                  >Cc: Burkhardt, Felix; Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr
>             <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>
>                  <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@__loria.fr
>             <mailto:Samuel.Cruz-Lara@loria.fr>>
>                  >Betreff: Re: AW: [EmotionML] implementation release
>             and feedbacks
>                  >
>                  >Dear Alexandre and EmotionML implementers,
>                  >
>                  >Thank you very much for implementing EmotionML, Alexandre!
>                  >Also your thorough review on the EmotionML [1]
>             specification and the
>                  >Implementation Report [2] is really appreciated.
>                  >
>                  >We are very sorry it took much longer to get consensus
>             about how
>                  to respond
>                  >to you and wrap-up the procedure [3] to publish
>             EmotionML as a W3C
>                  >Recommendation.
>                  >
>                  >We the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group have
>             already
>                  fixed typos
>                  >in the spec and added necessary clarifications to it.  In
>                  addition, we have
>                  >generated an updated version of the schema [5, 6].
>                  >
>                  >Now the remaining question is how to deal with your
>             comments on the
>                  >Implementation Report which wouldn't change the spec
>             itself.
>                  >
>                  >I talked within the W3C Team about what we should have
>             done from
>                  the W3C
>                  >Process viewpoint, and it seems we need to make sure
>             that there
>                  are enough
>                  >implementation experience for the following two
>             features which
>                  were not
>                  >explicitly described in the published Implementation
>             Report [2].
>                  >
>                  >Feature1:
>                  >    In Section 2.4.1 of the sepc [1], there is a
>             feature "The end
>                  value
>                  >    MUST be greater than or equal to the start value",
>             which is not
>                  >    checked in the Implementation Report.
>                  >
>                  >Feature2:
>                  >    In Section 2.1.2 of the spec [1], there is a
>             feature "a
>                  typical use
>                  >    case is expected to be embedding an <emotion> into
>             some other
>                  >    markup", which is not checked in the
>             Implementation Report.
>                  >
>                  >We have already checked with EmotionML implementers
>             (including
>                  you) and
>                  >it seems we can get several implementations for the
>             above two
>                  features as
>                  >well.
>                  >
>                  >Now we would like to ask all the EmotionML implementers to
>                  respond to this
>                  >message and express if the aobve features are
>             implmented so that
>                  we can
>                  >finalize the procedure and publish EmotionML as a W3C
>             Recommendation.
>                  >
>                  >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/>
>                  >[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2013/emotionml-ir/
>             <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/>
>                  >[3]
>             http://www.w3.org/2004/02/__Process-20040205/tr.html#__maturity-levels
>             <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#maturity-levels>
>                  >[4]
>             http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/www-multimodal/2013May/__0000.html
>             <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-multimodal/2013May/0000.html>
>                  >[5]
>             http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml.__xsd
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml.xsd>
>                  >[6]
>             http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/emotionml-
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/emotionml->
>                  >fragments.xsd
>                  >
>                  >Sincerely,
>                  >
>                  >Kazuyuki Ashimura;
>                  >for the W3C Multimodal Interaction Working Group
>                  >
>                  >
>                  >
>                  >On 05/02/2013 07:00 PM, Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de
>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>
>                  <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@__telekom.de
>             <mailto:Felix.Burkhardt@telekom.de>> wrote:
>                  >> Congratulations, Alexandre
>                  >>
>                  >>  >Sorry to give you more work!
>                  >>
>                  >> Not at all, I'm indeed very happy you work with
>             EmotionML and
>                  grateful
>                  >> you do such a thorough job in revising it!
>                  >>
>                  >> It's just it'll take me/us some time to react on
>             this, sorry
>                  about this.
>                  >>
>                  >> Kind regards,
>                  >>
>                  >> Felix
>                  >>
>                  >> *Von:*Alexandre Denis
>             [mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>
>                  <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.__fr
>             <mailto:alexandre.denis@loria.fr>>]
>                  >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 2. Mai 2013 11:43
>                  >> *An:* www-multimodal@w3.org
>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org> <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org
>             <mailto:www-multimodal@w3.org>>__;
>                  Samuel CRUZ-LARA
>                  >> *Betreff:* [EmotionML] implementation release and
>             feedbacks
>                  >>
>                  >> Hello all,
>                  >>
>                  >> I'm happy to announce that we released the very
>             first version
>                  of our
>                  >> EmotionML Java implementation. It is hosted on
>             google code and
>                  >> released under the MIT license:
>                  >> https://code.google.com/p/__loria-synalp-emotionml/
>             <https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/>
>                  >>
>                  >> It is still considered as an alpha version, we would
>             need some
>                  users
>                  >> to validate its use. And there is still some work on the
>                  documentation
>                  >> but the core of the code is there.
>                  >>
>                  >> If we could be listed as an implementation in the
>             next round of the
>                  >> implementation report it would be nice. Here is the
>             description:
>                  >>
>                  >> Alexandre Denis, LORIA laboratory, SYNALP team, France
>                  >>
>                  >> The LORIA/SYNALP implementation of EmotionML is a
>             Java standalone
>                  >> library developed in the context of the ITEA
>             Empathic Products
>                  project
>                  >> by the LORIA/SYNALP team. It enables to import Java
>             objects from
>                  >> EmotionML XML files and export them to EmotionML as
>             well. It
>                  >> guarantees standard compliance by performing a two
>             steps validation
>                  >> after all export operations and before all import
>             operations: first
>                  >> the EmotionML schema is tested, then all EmotionML
>             assertions are
>                  >> tested. If one or the other fails, an error message
>             is produced and
>                  >> the document cannot be imported or exported. The
>             library contains a
>                  >> corpus of badly formatted EmotionML files that
>             enables to
>                  double check
>                  >> if both the schema and the assertions manage to
>             correctly
>                  invalidate
>                  >> them. The API is hosted on google code
>                  >> (https://code.google.com/p/__loria-synalp-emotionml/
>             <https://code.google.com/p/loria-synalp-emotionml/>) and is
>                  released under
>                  >the MIT License.
>                  >>
>                  >> Moreover I don't come to you with empty hands, and I
>             have a
>                  bunch of
>                  >> remarks related to the EmotionML specification.
>             Sorry to give
>                  you more
>                  >work!
>                  >>
>                  >> best regards,
>                  >>
>                  >> Alexandre Denis
>                  >>
>                  >> *** Comments about EmotionML specification
>                  >>
>                  >> In what follows:
>                  >>
>                  >> - "specification" refers to the document at
>                  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-__emotionml-20130416/
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/PR-emotionml-20130416/> (version
>             of 16
>                  April
>                  >> 2013)
>                  >>
>                  >> - "assertions" refers to the list of assertions at
>                  >>
>             http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/__2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class
>             <http://www.w3.org/2002/mmi/2013/emotionml-ir/#test_class>
>                  >>
>                  >> - "schema" refers to the schemas
>                  >> http://www.w3.org/TR/__emotionml/emotionml.xsd
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml.xsd> and
>                  >>
>             http://www.w3.org/TR/__emotionml/emotionml-fragments.__xsd
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/emotionml-fragments.xsd>
>                  >>
>                  >> ** Specification clarification questions
>                  >>
>                  >> - About relative and absolute timing ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - Is that possible to mix relative and
>             absolute
>                  timing ?
>                  >> Intuitively this would seem weird but nothing in the
>                  >>
>                  >>              specification prevents it.
>                  >>
>                  >> - About consistency of start/end/duration ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - I think the specification does not
>             enforce the
>                  >> consistency of start, end and duration which are
>                  >>
>                  >>              possible alltogether. Hence it is
>             possible to have
>                  >> inconsistent triplets (start=0, end=5, duration=10).
>                  >>
>                  >> - About text nodes ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the emotion element can have text nodes
>                  children, it is
>                  >> not specified how many. Is it possible to
>             intersperse text
>                  nodes all
>                  >> over
>                  >>
>                  >>              an emotion element ? The fact that an
>             emotion
>                  element can
>                  >> have text children is not specified in its children
>             list.
>                  >>
>                  >> - About emotion children combinations ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the specification states "There are no
>                  constraints on
>                  >> the combinations of children that are allowed.", it
>             is maybe
>                  confusing
>                  >> since
>                  >>
>                  >>              an emotion cannot contain two
>             categories that
>                  belong to
>                  >> different category-sets or two categories with the
>             same name.
>                  >>
>                  >> - About default values ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - some attributes have default values
>             (reference role,
>                  >> time ref anchor point, duration, etc.), is it
>             desirable to have a
>                  >> default
>                  >>
>                  >>              value also for other attributes,
>             especially for
>                  the "value"
>                  >> attribute ? For instance, how would you compare
>             <category
>                  >> name="surprise"/>
>                  >>
>                  >>              and <category name="surprise"
>             value="1.0"/> ? Are they
>                  >> semantically equivalent ? A similar question could
>             be made
>                  about the
>                  >> "confidence"
>                  >>
>                  >>              attribute, how would you compare <category
>                  >> name="surprise"/> and <category name="surprise"
>                  confidence="1.0"/> ?
>                  >>
>                  >> - About the number of <trace> ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the specification does not state
>             clearly if it is
>                  >> possible to have several <trace> elements inside a
>             descriptor,
>                  it is
>                  >> stated
>                  >>
>                  >>              "a <trace> element". Maybe it should be
>             stated "If
>                  >> present the following child element can occur one or
>             more time:
>                  <trace>".
>                  >>
>                  >>              The schema allows that. If this comment is
>                  accepted, the
>                  >> assertions 215, 224, 235, 245 should also be clarified.
>                  >>
>                  >> - About conformance ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - In section 4.3, it is stated "It is the
>                  responsibility
>                  >> of an EmotionML processor to verify that the use of
>             descriptor
>                  names
>                  >> and values
>                  >>
>                  >>              is consistent with the vocabulary
>             definition",
>                  which is
>                  >> true but incomplete with regards to the assertions,
>                  >>
>                  >>              maybe it would be beneficial to specify
>             all the
>                  >> assertions that are not under the schema
>             responsability but
>                  rather the
>                  >> EmotionML processor
>                  >>
>                  >>              (see below) or at least warn that there
>             are many
>                  >> assertions not checked by the schema.
>                  >>
>                  >> ** Discrepancies between
>             schema/assertions/__specification
>                  >>
>                  >> - Assertions not tested by the schema
>                  >>
>                  >>              - I found that the following assertions
>             are not
>                  tested by
>                  >> the schema : 114, 117, 120, 123, 161, 164, 167, 170,
>             172, 210, 212,
>                  >>
>                  >>              216, 220, 222, 224, 230, 232, 236, 240,
>             242, 246,
>                  410, 417.
>                  >>
>                  >>              There are assertions that are
>             impossible to test
>                  with a
>                  >> XSD schema I think:
>                  >>
>                  >>                          114, 117, 120, 123, 161,
>             164, 167, 170 :
>                  >> vocabulary set id and type checking
>                  >>
>                  >>                          212, 222, 232, 242 :
>             vocabulary name
>                  >> membership
>                  >>
>                  >>                          417 : media type (unless
>             enumerating them)
>                  >>
>                  >>              Some may be possible with some tweaking:
>                  >>
>                  >>                          210, 220, 230, 240 :
>             vocabulary set
>                  presence
>                  >>
>                  >>                          216, 224, 236, 246 :
>             <trace> and "value"
>                  >>
>                  >>              There are two "true" errors I think:
>                  >>
>                  >>                          172 : The "version"
>             attribute of
>                  <emotion>,
>                  >> if present, MUST have the  value "1.0"
>                  >>
>                  >>                                      I think it
>             should not be
>                  >> "optional with default value 1.0" but rather
>             "optional with
>                  fixed value 1.0"
>                  >>
>                  >>                          410 : The <reference>
>             element MUST
>                  contain a
>                  >> "uri" attribute
>                  >>
>                  >>                                      the "uri"
>             attribute is
>                  optional
>                  >> by default in the schema
>                  >>
>                  >> - 2.4.1, "The end value MUST be greater than or
>             equal to the start
>                  >> value",
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the schema does not check it and
>             there is no
>                  assertion
>                  >> enforcing it
>                  >>
>                  >> - 2.1.2, "a typical use case is expected to be
>             embedding an
>                  <emotion>
>                  >> into some other markup",
>                  >>
>                  >>              - there is no assertion that describe that
>                  <emotion> may
>                  >> be embedded in another markup, does it imply we
>             could embed other
>                  >elements ?
>                  >>
>                  >>              - is a document containing a sole
>             <emotion> a valid
>                  >> document (not in the sense of <emotionml> document)
>             ? If yes,
>                  maybe an
>                  >> assertion clarifiying the use of <emotion> would be
>             useful.
>                  >>
>                  >> - assertions 105, 155, 601, 606, status "Req=N"
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the assertions mix the presence of
>             <info> and the
>                  >> number of <info> elements, while the presence is not
>                  restricted, the
>                  >> number
>                  >>
>                  >>              MUST be 0 or 1, hence the required
>             status wrt this
>                  part
>                  >> of assertions should be "Req=Y"
>                  >>
>                  >> - 2.1.2, "There are no constraints on the order in which
>                  children occur"
>                  >>
>                  >>              - the schema does actually restrict the
>             order of
>                  >> elements, <info> needs to be first, then the
>             descriptors, then the
>                  >> references
>                  >>
>                  >> ** Invalid documents
>                  >>
>                  >> (I have not systematically tested examples with
>             non-valid
>                  vocabulary
>                  >> URIs such as http://www.example.
>             <http://www.example./>...)
>                  >>
>                  >> - http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-__voc/xml
>             <http://www.w3.org/TR/emotion-voc/xml> does not comply with
>                  assertion
>                  >> 110 (hence all examples that refer to vocabularies
>             there also fail)
>                  >>
>                  >> - 2.3.3 The <info> element
>                  >>
>                  >>              - The last example of this section does
>             not comply
>                  with
>                  >> assertion 212 since the name "neutral" does not
>             belong to every-day
>                  >> categories
>                  >>
>                  >> - 5.1.1 Annotation of Text, "Annotation of text"
>             Lewis Caroll
>                  example:
>                  >>
>                  >>              - In the <meta:doc> element, the
>             character & is found,
>                  >> which does not pass XML validation, it should be
>             &amp; (so does the
>                  >> example below)
>                  >>
>                  >>              - It also does not comply with
>             assertion 212 since
>                  >> Disgust and Anger are not part of every-day categories
>                  >>
>                  >
>                  >
>                  >--
>                  >Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
>                  >Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>             <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>
>
>         =
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Kaz Ashimura, W3C Staff Contact for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
>     Tel: +81 466 49 1170 <tel:%2B81%20466%2049%201170>
>
>

-- 
Kaz Ashimura, W3C Activity Lead for Web&TV, MMI and Voice
Tel: +81 466 49 1170
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 18:22:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:38 UTC