- From: McGlashan, Scott <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:33:25 +0100
- To: <rhb@cisco.com>
- Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is now completing its resolution of issues raised during the review of the Candidate Recommendation version of 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 raised. Please indicate before 26 November 2003 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. If you do not think you can respond before 26 November, please let me know. The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree with the resolutions or not. However, if we do not hear from you at all by 26 November 2003, we 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2003JulSep/0001.html Issue CR17-1 In all revs of the VXML 2.0 spec, Appendix J (Changes from VoiceXML 1.0), "Modified Elements" section, it says: added "error.unsupported.language" pre-defined error type (5.3.6) However, the reference to section 5.3.6 points to "REPROMPT", which doesn't have this error listed, and I don't understand any scenarios where REPROMPT could throw this event. We are working on a project porting a product from VXML 1.0 to 2.0, and if this change actually does impact the REPROMPT element, we need to understand it better. Alternately, is it possible that this is a typo in the spec, and that instead of "5.3.6", it should really refer to section "5.2.6" - "Event Types" which 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