W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: bnf or xml

From: Michael K. Brown <mkb@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:02:21 +0000
Message-ID: <397311ED.8B39B986@research.bell-labs.com>
To: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
CC: "'www-voice@w3.org'" <www-voice@w3.org>
This issue was addressed in the Philadelphia face-to-face meeting last
January.  There was no clear consensus at that time and my
interpretation was and still is that there is sufficient interest in
maintaining a BNF spec to continue support.  One approach I suggested at
that time was to support primary and secondary specifications so that we
might have one official spec (primary, most likely XML) against which
all issues of compliance could be addressed, and a convenient compact
alternative notation (most likely BNF).  There was enough resistance to
lowering the status of either BNF or XML that neither was accepted.

I agree with your interest in having a single point of compliance.  This
has not been an easy issue to resolve so far, and I expect it will
require a formal vote.  If we are now ready to resolve this, then we
should probably plan to take a formal vote at the next face to face

Are there other suggestions for a way to resolve this issue?
		Michael K. Brown
		Bell Labs, Rm. 2D-534, (908) 582-5044
		600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, NJ 07974

"Pawson, David" wrote:
> The W3C Voice Browser Working Group is seeking input on whether the final
> specification should include both forms or be narrowed to a specific form.
> Having watched the difficulties of SVG working two forms,
> I agree on a need to maintain a single form.
> My preference would be for XML, if you can get the
> equivalent exactitute available in BNF.
> Reason? toolsets availability and (guessing)
> a reducing number  of people familiar with bnf.
> Regards DaveP
Received on Monday, 17 July 2000 10:08:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:34 UTC