W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: VoiceXML2: Examples

From: Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:31:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2764A29BE430E64A92EB56561587D2E7108265@se01ms02.i.pipebeach.com>
To: "Max Froumentin" <mf@w3.org>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

Dear Max,

Thank you for your comments [2] (and the resulting thread [3]-[6]) on
VoiceXML 2.0 Candidate Recommendation [1].  We will consider your
comments and get back to you as soon as possible with our official

We have already asked our W3C team contact to investigate further the
W3C best practises for using schema in recommendations.  

Thanks again,

Scott McGlashan
Leader, Dialog Team, W3C VBWG

[1] VoiceXML 2.0, W3C Candidate Recommendation, 28 January 2003

[2] Email from Max Froumentin to www-voice@w3.org

[3] Thread: Reply from Al Gilman

[4] Thread: Response from Max Fromentin

[5] Thread: Reply from Al Gilman

[6] Thread: Response from Max Fromentin

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Froumentin [mailto:mf@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 10:58
To: Al Gilman
Cc: www-voice@w3.org; www-qa@w3.org
Subject: Re: VoiceXML2: Examples

Hi Al,

Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net> wrote:

> <mostly agreement/>
> I still think that the Voice issue is limited to "you might want to 
> use more elliptical fragments in the examples" which is an editorial 
> issue not requiring tracking.

It is an editiorial issue (readability of examples), but I still believe
there is more than that in terms of implying that the schema is
mandatory.  So while I agree that this second issue should also be
discussed in a more general EO/QA context, I maintain both comments, 
and I would still like my original request to be answered by the WG.


Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 09:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:36 UTC