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

RE: VoiceXML 2.1: VoiceXML 2.0 support

From: <ken.waln@edify.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:35:50 -0700
Message-ID: <5076FACEDACF624B965A87041DD1F9CA1129D0@x2.edify.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org

In rereading this section I agree with Bjoern.  Other than the version
attribute in the <vxml> tag, a VoiceXML 2.0 document is a VoiceXML 2.1
document (in other words 2.1 defines a strict superset) so I think VoiceXML
2.1 interpreters should be required to properly interpret 2.0 documents
without this exception ("The handling of a single application that mixes
VoiceXML 2.0 and VoiceXML 2.1 functionality is platform-specific. Reasonable
behavior in this case ranges the gamut from successful execution to the
throwing of an error..").  I'm not sure what 2.0 functionality I would be
"mixing" since all 2.0 functionality is 2.1 functionality and not using a
specific new feature certainly cannot be considered to be non-conforming.
Not really important, but philosophically I'd say get rid of this section.
In practical terms, 2.1 docs will often reference 2.0 subdialogs since those
may be from another developer or vendor (think ScanSoft OSDM's as an
example).
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Schnelle [mailto:dirk@tk.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:01 AM
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VoiceXML 2.1: VoiceXML 2.0 support


Hi Bjoern,


>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/ notes that 
> 
> [...]
>   Interpreters that support both VoiceXML 2.0 and VoiceXML 2.1
>   must support the ability to transition from an application of
>   one version to an application of another version.
> [...]
> 
> This implies that VoiceXML 2.1 implementations are not required to
> support VoiceXML 2.0 documents, it's however not clear why. Please
> either change the document such that 2.1 implementations must also
> support 2.0 documents or such that it is explained why VoiceXML
> authors might find implementations that only support VoiceXML 2.1.

I think that the reason is given in the paragraph above:

[...]
While the features of VoiceXML 2.1 are orthogonal additions to [VXML2],
a VoiceXML application should not mix documents of both types. The
handling of a single application that mixes VoiceXML 2.0 and VoiceXML
2.1 functionality is platform-specific. Reasonable behavior in this case
ranges the gamut from successful execution to the throwing of an error.
[...]

IMHO the idea is that there should be a clear statement of the authors
if they write for 2.1 or 2.0.

/dirk
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 00:34:58 GMT

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