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

Comments from I18N on VoiceXML 2.1

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:28:20 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040901064159.05a4ca68@localhost>
To: www-voice@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Dear Voice Browser WG,

These are the comments from the I18N WG (Core Task Force) on VoiceXML 2.1.

Abstract: "VoiceXML 2.1 specifies a set of features commonly implemented by 
Voice Extensible Markup Language platforms. This specification is designed 
to be fully backwards-compatible with VoiceXML 2.0 [VXML2]."

-> It is not clear to the reader quickly enough that this specification
    only describes a diff between VoiceXML 2.1 and VoiceXML 2.0. This
    should be made much clearer.


Appendix C: "A conforming VoiceXML document is a well-formed [XML] document 
that requires only the facilities described as mandatory in this 
specification and in [VXML2]."

-> Similar confusion as above. Either VoiceXML 2.1 is the diff, or it is
    the result of additions. But not both.


Section 2, street example: In usual Web browsers, for internationalization
reasons, usually 'address1', 'address2', are used. Is there such
practice for Voice applications? If not, how are addresses in various
locations around the world handled? It would be highly desirable if
this example were fixed so that it could be used as good practice
worldwide. Same for citystate.


URIs: The XML Schema at
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-voicexml21-20040728/vxml-datatypes.xsd
containing the segment:

<xsd:simpleType name="URI.datatype">
     <xsd:annotation>
         <xsd:documentation>URI (RFC2396)</xsd:documentation>
     </xsd:annotation>
     <xsd:restriction base="xsd:anyURI"/>
</xsd:simpleType>

seems to try to restrict anyURIs used in VXML to URIs only.
However, there are two problems with this approach:
1) This is a very poor way of trying to make this restriction,
    if the restriction is indeed to be made, an actual pattern
    should be specified.
2) Such a restriction would rule out the use of IRIs, which would
    be a very bad idea with respect to internationalization.
So we request that you:
- (possibly) add a restriction that just removes space and a few
   other ASCII characters allowed in anyURI, but neither in
   URIs nor in IRIs.
- Say clearly in the spec that wherever the term URI is used,
   this isn't restricted to ASCII only, but follows IRIs.

Regards,    Martin. 
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2004 07:28:39 GMT

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