W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: FW: VoiceXML 2.1 and PI issue

From: Brad Porter <brad@tellme.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 08:03:37 -0700
Message-ID: <416FE6C9.9000401@tellme.com>
To: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>, MattO <matto@tellme.com>, 'Michael Bodell' <bodell@tellme.com>, www-voice@w3.org
My hope is to review the discussions and options with the VoiceXML 2.1 
group next Thursday.  MattO is responsible for that agenda; he'll send 
out appropriate invites. 

The idea is that these PI semantics could be applicable to any XML 
document.  There's was also a goal of allowing the addition of the 
processing instruction to existing XML documents (like existing RSS 
feeds) without having to modify the structure of the document.  So if 
people use single-namespace processors and editors for there content, 
the addition of this access-control enhancement shouldn't interfere.

I'm personally still leaning toward the PI myself, but I think I can 
present balanced trade-offs.  The XML encryption standard looks like it 
would work, but is perhaps overkill for our needs (key management 
challenges are the main concern).  It may be something that we should 
try to support in addition.

Brad

Max Froumentin wrote:

>I agree with DanC that the main inconvenient about PIs is that they
>aren't bound to namespaces. And it would be a problem if VoiceXML was
>mixed with other markup in a document. Unless the PI's semantics
>applied to any XML document, which I don't expect VoiceXML 2.1 to do.
>
>  
>
>>Dave gave another: the DOM doesn't give access to them.
>>    
>>
>
>It does and XSLT too.
>See http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/core.html#ID-1004215813
>
>On the other hand, SOAP 1.2 doesn't allow them. I know the reasons for
>that have been discussed many times, but I'm still hold the grudge that
>SOAP has unilaterally killed PIs in any XML document that might be wrapped
>in it. Just like doctypes. But I digress.
>
>So my point is: the only reason why PIs should be avoided is
>namespaces.  The other ones mentioned in this thread aren't valid, in
>my opinion.
>
>Max.
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 15:04:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:00 GMT