W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: [dialog] Guillaume #4 - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Review Issues

From: Guillaume Berche <guillaume.berche@eloquant.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:12:10 +0200
To: "Scott McGlashan" <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>, "w3c voice (E-mail)" <www-voice@w3.org>
Cc: <ranjansharma@lucent.com>
Message-ID: <ELEGLIHGLLIBFPCIGAKGAEFLDAAA.guillaume.berche@eloquant.com>

Scott,

Sorry about my last imprecise comment, as Rajan adviced, I forgot to take
into account form-level grammars in my comment. It may therefore be
difficult to validate when entering the waiting state that there is at least
an active grammar (at form or field level or even document level?) that
would able to fill in the currently active field. Preventing author typos is
may be too difficult in this case. Please discard my previous comment.

> I don't see how input may be gathered from the user if no grammar is
> associated with the field.
>
> My suggestion was therefore that it would probably not make sense from a
> VXML author to define a field without a grammar.

Regards,

Guillaume.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Guillaume Berche
> Sent: mardi 22 octobre 2002 15:16
> To: Scott McGlashan; w3c voice (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [dialog] Guillaume #4 - VBWG official response to VoiceXML
> 2.0 Last Call Review Issues
>
>
>
> Scott,
>
> Thanks for your answer and for processing my comments outside of the
> official comment period.
>
> > Please indicate before 1st November 2002 whether you are satisfied with
> > the VBWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
> > misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
>
> I am satisfied with the VBWG's resolutions, except for point 6 for which I
> wish to add the following comment.
>
>
> > 6) Precise that a <field> item without implicit nor explicit grammar
> > should
> > throw an error.semantic event.
> > See if it is possible to refine the schema to enforce this.
> > Alternative suggested text modification to the end of section "2.3.1
> > FIELD"
> > "[...] The use of <option> does not preclude the simultaneous use of
> > <grammar>. The result would be the match from either 'grammar', not
> > unlike
> > the occurence of two <grammar> elements in the same <field> representing
> > a
> > disjunction of choices. However, a field item without implicit nor
> > explicit
> > grammar would result in an error.semantic event to be thrown at document
> > initialization time".
> >
> >
> > VBWG Response: Rejected.
> >
> > The specification doesn't state or imply that a field without grammars
> > is an error, so we cannot make it more precise.
> >
>
> Section "2.3.1 FIELD" defines a field as "A field specifies an
> input item to
> be gathered from the user. "
> I don't see how input may be gathered from the user if no grammar is
> associated with the field.
>
> My suggestion was therefore that it would probably not make sense from a
> VXML author to define a field without a grammar. Rather this
> condition would
> appear as a result of an authoring error. I believe it would help authors
> detect such VXML mistakes to throw an error.semantic event
> instead of simply
> letting the interpreter throw a nomatch/noinput event. In general
> I believe
> it is easier to debug upfront errors in a VXML application rather than at
> runtime.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Guillaume Berche.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 07:11:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:56 GMT