W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: flow control

From: Shridhar Damle <shridhar@cgclogic.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:41:23 +0530
Message-ID: <004e01c182cb$717af4e0$096409c0@dev1>
To: <eburger@snowshore.com>, "HO,ELWIN \(HP-Cupertino,ex1\)" <elwin_ho@hp.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
VoiceXML is good to have a dialog with party on other side. But from the
moment the call enters the system, its routing, handling, waiting,
transferring etc can not be customized efficiently with VoiceXML. Hence
something like CCXML should be there.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Burger" <eburger@snowshore.com>
To: "HO,ELWIN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <elwin_ho@hp.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:33 AM
Subject: RE: flow control

> This is the purpose of the architecture description of CCXML.
> Some of us believe that VoiceXML should have absolutely no call control.
> Others believe that VoiceXML should have full control of the user
> interaction.
> The current goal is to make it such that if you don't want call control in
> VoiceXML, you will be happy.  If you do want call control, we will try to
> make it so you don't hurt yourself too much :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of HO,ELWIN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 1:31 PM
> To: 'www-voice@w3.org'
> Subject: flow control
> I heard some argument about VoiceXML shouldn't contain flow control
> Questions:
> 1. Anyone know more detail information about this?
> 2. Do you think VoiceXML will remove this feature in the future?
> Thanks
> Elwin

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2001 00:04:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:35 UTC