W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

[vbwg] Should existing Recommendations be updated with IRIs and XML 1.1 through errata?

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:26:01 +0900
Message-ID: <46A3AF49.9010602@w3.org>
To: www-tag@w3.org
CC: W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>

Dear TAG members,

During the development of the Speech Interface Framework
specifications, we the Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) have
encountered an issue that we think should be submitted to the TAG.

There are several Recommendations developed by VBWG that talk about
URIs and XML 1.0, and should talk about IRIs and XML 1.1.  The group
discussed how to reflect above change in the VBWG specifications. And
the conclusion was (1) the change should be included in the
specifications which are under development (e.g. SSML 1.1, VoiceXML
3.0, PLS 1.0, SCXML, CCXML 1.0) and (2) the errata pages should be
updated for the existing Recommendations (e.g. VoiceXML 2.0, 2.1, SRGS
1.0, SSML 1.0, SISR 1.0).

However, some of the group participants wonder whether it is really
appropriate and the best solution or not, because if it is, all the
WGs have to update their errata with the change and/or republish their
specs just for the change.  In addition, we are a bit concerned that
it might be inconvenient for the implementers to make substantive
changes like this to existing Recommendations and mandate their

So the question is:
Is it recommended that all the previous Recommendations be amended
through errata so that they accept IRI, and implementations be changed

It would be great if we could get your advice by July 30, 2007.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.



Kazuyuki Ashimura / W3C MMI & Voice Activity Lead
mailto: ashimura@w3.org
voice: +81.466.49.1170 / fax: +81.466.49.1171
Received on Sunday, 22 July 2007 19:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:53 UTC