W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: VoiceXML 2.0 spec quesiton/errata

From: <ken.waln@edify.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:38 -0700
Message-ID: <5076FACEDACF624B965A87041DD1F9CA0ACCFF@x2.edify.com>
To: derhoermi@gmx.net
Cc: www-voice@w3.org

Thanks. This at least makes the case unambiguous. However, this makes the
convention even more confusing as this is obviously an error (fetchaudio
must point to a sound file to make sense) so I still think a clarification
is in order.  However this RFC which I missed does imply that the right
behavior is a semantic error (not a parsing error) and it should be ignored,
so I guess it does what was intended in the end. Also rfc3986 is not
referenced directly although it may be an indirect reference.
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:45 PM
To: Waln, Ken
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VoiceXML 2.0 spec quesiton/errata


* ken.waln@edify.com wrote:
>2)	Not quite the same but a similar issue came up on <subdialog
>fetchaudio="">.  The "fetchaudio" is defined to be a uri and there is no
>formal definition of a uri allowing nothing as a value. It is not clear if
>this is an error (which the spec is clear should be ignored) or a valid
>"null" value.

In http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt and its predecessors an empty
string is considered a same-document reference, so if the VoiceXML
document is at http://example.org/example.vxml, fetchaudio="" would
likely be equivalent to fetchaudio="example.vxml".
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2005 06:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:01 GMT