W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2003

VoiceXML 2.0: Official Response #11 to Candidate Recommendation Issues

From: McGlashan, Scott <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:33:25 +0100
Message-ID: <77DB1374F763FB489900AA600DA37AE10356358E@frqexc01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: <rhb@cisco.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is now completing its resolution
issues raised during the review of the Candidate Recommendation version
VoiceXML 2.0 [1]. Our apologies that it has taken so long to respond.

Following the process described in [2] for advancement to Proposed
Recommendation, this is the VBWG's formal response to the issues you

Please indicate before 26 November 2003 whether you are satisfied with
VBWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a misunderstanding,
whether you wish to register an objection.

If you do not think you can respond before 26 November, please let me
The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the
or not. However, if we do not hear from you at all by 26 November 2003,
will assume that you accept our resolutions.

Below you will find a summary of the VBWG's responses to each of your
issues. Please use the issue identifiers when responding.

Thank you,

Scott McGlashan
Co-chair, Voice Browser Working Group

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-voicexml20-20030220/ 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/ 

Issues you raised and VBWG responses

Issues: CR17-1

Issue CR17-1
In all revs of the VXML 2.0 spec, Appendix J (Changes from VoiceXML
"Modified Elements" section, it says:
	added "error.unsupported.language" pre-defined error type

However, the reference to section 5.3.6 points to "REPROMPT", which
have this error listed, and I don't understand any scenarios where
could throw this event.

We are working on a project porting a product from VXML 1.0 to 2.0, and
this change actually does impact the REPROMPT element, we need to
it better.

Alternately, is it possible that this is a typo in the spec, and that
of "5.3.6", it should really refer to section "5.2.6" - "Event Types"
would make complete sense?

CR17-1 Resolution: accepted 

It is a typo and will be corrected to 5.2.6. 
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 14:33:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:37 UTC