W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: VoiceXML comments from Elvira development team - part I

From: Pavel Cenek <pavel.cenek@itek.norut.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 15:36:54 +0200
Message-ID: <3CC2C076.1060205@itek.norut.no>
To: Laura Werner <laura@bevocal.com>
CC: www-voice@w3.org
Thank you very much for your answers.

>>3 - Catch selection algorithm
>>Is it true that the catch element selection algorithm gives 
>>priority to catch elements that occur earlier in a document?
> 
> Yes.  

But the specification says something else (or I just don't understand it 
correctly?)

Here is the citation again

<cite chapter="5.2.4">
    1. Form an ordered list of catches consisting of all catches in the 
current scope and all enclosing scopes (form item, form, document, 
application root document, interpreter context), ordered first by scope 
(starting with the current scope), and then within each scope by 
document order.
[...]
    4. Select the first element in the list with the "correct count".
[...]
    Note that the catch element selection algorithm gives priority to 
catch elements that occur earlier in a document over those that occur later,
</cite>

The list of catches is formed so that the items are ordered from the 
most inner scope to the most outer scope. And the first item with the 
correct count is selected, i.e. the <catch> in the current scope first 
(if such <catch> exists and has correct count).

But it contradicts with the sentence "Note that the catch element 
selection algorithm gives priority to catch elements that occur earlier 
in a document over those that occur later". In my opinion "elements that 
occur earlier in a document" are elements in a more outer scope or in 
the same scope but placed before the element which is the reference point.

So what do I interpretat wrong, please?

>>6 - Telephony
>>If VoiceXML is considered to be a _general_ language for description of the
>>dialog flow rather then tailored for telephony, then also PC keyboard (or
>>better a keyboard in general) should be supported as input device
> 
> This has been a goal all along, so VoiceXML is accessible to the hearing
> impaired.

What has been a goal all along. That VoiceXML will be tailored for 
telephony or that VoiceXML should be a _general_ language for 
description of the dialog flow?

>>8 - order of <filled> calls
>>---------------------------
>>Why there is a change of preferences in VoiceXML 2.0 against 1.0?
> There isn't.  VoiceXML 1.0 has the same exact wording you cite.

Yes, you are right, there isn't, my mistake. Then the objection is the 
same - this breaks the scoping - and is valid also for VoiceXML 1.0.


    Pavel Cenek

-- 

============================================================================
  Pavel Cenek   Ph.D. student         email: xcenek@fi.muni.cz
  Laboratory of Speech and Dialogue   www: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xcenek
  Faculty of Informatics, MU Brno     lab page: http://www.fi.muni.cz/lsd

  Currently affiliated with Norut IT  http://www.itek.norut.no/itek/
  Tromsoe, Norway as guest researcher
============================================================================
  Elvira - LSD VoiceXML interpreter 
http://gin2.itek.norut.no/elvira/
  Engine for building dialogue applications
============================================================================
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 09:37:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:55 GMT