RE: A couple of questions about the grammar specs

Iain,

From your questions I suspect that you are looking at the January 3rd
version of the grammar specification.  Just last week a second Last Call
Working draft for the grammar spec (August 20 draft) was released and
addresses your 3 questions.  Included below is the lastest status.  The
latest spec is available at:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-grammar/

Regards,
  Andrew Hunt
  Co-editor Grammar Spec
  SpeechWorks International
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Urquhart
  Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 4:07 PM
  To: www-voice@w3.org
  Subject: A couple of questions about the grammar specs


  A couple or three questions about the grammar spec :

  1. Import resolution

  <import uri="http://www.somebody.org/grammars/grammar.xml" name="myref"/>

  This is clear

  <import uri="http://www.somebody.org/grammars/grammar.xml#rule"
name="myref"/>

  In this case, does "myref" refer to the rule or its grammar? In other
words, to use the rule, do I have to write :

  <ruleref import="myref#rule"/> or just <ruleref import="myref"/>?
Import is now changed to alias and a number of aspects of its definition
have changed.  The spec is now clear that an alias URI cannot include a
fragment separator so a named alias always references a grammar and never a
specific public rule of that grammar.  (See S4.2)

When referencing by alias (see S2.2.3) it is possible to reference the
grammar by its root or by a specified rulename.
  2. Root rule

  "Implicit root rule ...... is equivalent to defining a rule with all the
public rules alternatives"

  Does this imply that the weighting mechanisms in alternatives are also
pertinent for public rules within the grammar? Can I weight public rules?
There is no longer any implicit root rule.  A grammar must either explicitly
declare a root rule by name or else it is illegal to reference it as if it
had a root rule.  (See 4.1.4)
  3. Referencing special rules

  I think this is just a typo, but there seems to be an inconsistency
between the table in section 2.2 and the XML example in section 2.2.4. The
table gives <ruleref special="#GARBAGE"/> and the example gives
  <ruleref special="GARBAGE"/>. I'm assuming it's the table that's correct
.....
Yes, this was a typo and is fixed.  A special rule is a named entity and not
referenced by URI.  As a result the correct form of reference does not
include the "#" fragment separator.  (See 2.2.4).  So, the table was wrong.
  Answers much appreciated,

  Iain