RE: [v3] Video media support in VoiceXML

Eric,

Thanks for the input. We look forward to Brooktrout's active support on
our video proposal during the standardization process. 

Scott
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Burger [mailto:eburger@brooktrout.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 03:35
To: McGlashan, Scott; Max Froumentin
Cc: www-voice@w3.org; w3c-voice-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [v3] Video media support in VoiceXML

We've done, shipped, and are in production with essentially what Scott
proposes.  We even call the thing that plays video <audio> :)

Don't bother changing it -- we can't wait two years for a tag change.

Obviously, we're interested in it as well, but for all intents and
purposes, we are finished already.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McGlashan, Scott [mailto:scott.mcglashan@hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 1:42 PM
> To: Max Froumentin
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org; w3c-voice-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [v3] Video media support in VoiceXML
> 
> 
> 
> I know - we should have called it dialogML from the beginning - very 
> hard to change now ...
> 
> Scott
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-voice-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-voice-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Max Froumentin
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 18:41
> To: McGlashan, Scott
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org; w3c-voice-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [v3] Video media support in VoiceXML
> 
> 
> "McGlashan, Scott" <scott.mcglashan@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > This approach does have some issues which require further
> analysis for
> 
> > VoiceXML 3.0, including whether there should be a separate <video> 
> > element rather than re-using <audio>, and how controls for 
> > video-specific operations can be added. If others on this list are 
> > interested continuing this discussion offline, please let us know.
> 
> renaming <audio> to <video> prompts the question of whether to rename 
> VoiceXML too. DialogML? Probably not a great idea marketing-wise.
> 
> Max.
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2004 10:22:01 UTC