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

RE: VoiceXML 2.0: Official Response #11 to Candidate Recommendation Issues

From: McGlashan, Scott <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:18:11 +0100
Message-ID: <77DB1374F763FB489900AA600DA37AE1035635A3@frqexc01.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Robert Barkan" <rhb@cisco.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>


Thanks for your timely response. I've copied this to www-voice@w3.org
for adminstrative tracking of responses.

Thanks again,


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Barkan [mailto:rhb@cisco.com] 
Sent: 20 November 2003 04:42
To: McGlashan, Scott
Subject: Re: VoiceXML 2.0: Official Response #11 to Candidate
Recommendation Issues

Scott, thanks for the update on CR17-1, and I'm satisfied with the
VBWG's resolution on it. Please forward if appropriate. -Rob

At 08:33 PM 11/19/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>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 
>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 
>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
>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 
>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
>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 Thursday, 20 November 2003 12:18:26 UTC

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