RE: VoiceXML2.0: Missing "destexpr" attribute in specification of <record> element

James,

thank you for your public response to VoiceXML. 

To address your specific points:

1. <record> has considerable value without 'dest' --- see numerous
publications (e.g. VoiceXML Review
http://www.voicexml.org/Review/index.html), conference presentations and
even the specification itself for such uses of <record>. For example, a
basic voice mail record and playback service can be built.

2. There are no public plans to add a general EVAL feature to VoiceXML
2.0.

Due to W3C member confidentially, I cannot go into the details of
specific technical decisions or even specific features which are being
considered for future versions (until that information is made public by
the group). If you are seriously interested in that level of technical
discussion I would encourage you to join the Voice Browser Group --- see
http://www.w3.org for membership details. This will give you access to
our internal discussions and decision-making process.

Please let me know if this reply is unsatisfactory, or you want further
information.

thanks
  
Scott
 
(Chairman, W3C VB VoiceXML Committee).



-----Original Message-----
From: James Salsman [mailto:j.salsman@bovik.org]
Sent: 03 February 2002 02:23
To: Scott McGlashan
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VoiceXML2.0: Missing "destexpr" attribute in specification
of <record> element


Scott,

Please elaborate your comments:

>... The issue you described has already been discussed within the W3C
> VoiceXML team. Due to a number of unresolved technical issues around
the
> "dest" attribute, it is expected that the next Working Draft of the
> VoiceXML 2.0 specification will remove the "dest" attribute from
> <record> (hence, 'destexpr' is no longer relevant). 
>...  
> Please let me know if this reply is unsatisfactory, or you want
further
> information.

I feel it is unsatisfactory, and I want further information:

1.  Without DEST, what utility will remain in the RECORD element?

2.  Are there any plans to add a general EVAL to VoiceXML, eliminating 
the need for dichotomies such as DEST/DESTEXPR?

Thank you.

Best wishes,
James

> thanks
>  
> Scott
>  
> (Chairman, W3C VB VoiceXML Committee).
> 
> _______________
> 
> Scott McGlashan
> CTO
> PIPEBEACH
> Box 24035/Karlav. 108
> SE-104 50 Stockholm, Sweden
> fax:       +46 8 54590993
> office:    +46 8 54590990
> mobile:    +46 708 462432
> 
> 
> www.pipebeach.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wyss, Felix [mailto:FelixW@inin.com]
> Sent: 26 January 2002 22:14
> To: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: RE: VoiceXML2.0: Missing "destexpr" attribute in
specification
> of <record> element
> 
> 
> If I understand it correctly, the "dest" attribute of <record> allows
to
> explicitly specify the destination of the recording for platforms that
> support it.  For example, a platform that can directly record into WAV
> files could allow the "dest" attribute to specify the path to the
> recording (e.g. dest="file://c:\recordings\greeting_johndoe.wav").  
> That is obviously different than recording into memory and then
> submitting it to the document server using <submit> as you suggest.  
> 
> The "destexpr" attribute would allow synthesizing the filename at
> runtime based on an ECMAScript expression, which can be very useful.
In
> the above example, the userid could be appended at runtime, thus
> allowing reuse of the same VoiceXML document for different sessions
> instead of forcing the document server to assemble a new VoiceXML
> document for each userid.  I therefore think the standard should allow
> for a "destexpr" attribute in the <record> element.  
> 
> Felix
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Salsman [mailto:j.salsman@bovik.org]
> Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 13:14
> To: Wyss, Felix
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: Re: VoiceXML2.0: Missing "destexpr" attribute in
specification
> of <record> element
> 
> 
> > The VoiceXML 2.0 specification introduces a "dest" attribute for the

> > <record> element.  However, there is no "destexpr" attribute
(similar 
> > to <transfer>).  I presume this is an omission in the working draft.
> 
> Perhaps you can use RECORD's NAME attribute in conjunction with the 
> SUBMIT element's NAMELIST, METHOD=POST, and
> ENCTYPE="multipart/form-data"?
> 
> Speaking of omissions in VoiceXML drafts, I notice that Lernout & 
> Hauspie left endpointing (also called segmentation and alignment) 
> out of the so-called semantic interpretation working draft:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-semantic-interpretation-20011116/
> 
> even though they produce a product to accomplish the required task.
> 
> Anyway, with the large number of low-cost and no-cost recognition 
> systems presently available, a handful of which have endpointing 
> features built-in, this sorry state of affars is surmountable.  
> However, VoiceXML is presently incapable of the task.
> 
> Endpointing is essential to perform the operations described on:
> 
>   http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article3/#Figure3
> 
> Best wishes,
> James
>

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 10:24:09 UTC