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

Re: bnf or xml

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:20:09 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Michael K. Brown" <mkb@research.bell-labs.com>, "Pawson, David" <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Cc: "'www-voice@w3.org'" <www-voice@w3.org>
How are the accessibility issues taken into account in the BNF spec? When 
XML is used some things are automatically inherited e.g. stylesheets, DOM 
interface, mixing of other languages to always provide most suitable 
mark-up etc.


At 02:02 PM 7/17/2000 +0000, Michael K. Brown wrote:
>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
>                 mkb@research.bell-labs.com
>"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
> > (AC RNIB)
Received on Monday, 17 July 2000 17:24:14 UTC

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