W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: VBWG official response to last call issue

From: MattO <matto@tellme.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:08:51 -0800
To: 'Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux' <dom@w3.org>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b701c524c2$49018960$6401a8c0@sea.tellme.com>

Hi, Dom,

Regarding your issue:

"- the notion of XML well-formed document is bound to XML 1.0 in the spec;
is there any discussion on accepting also XML 1.1?"

VBWG Response: Deferred

Given that VoiceXML relies on a normative XMLSchema schema, using XML 1.1
would mean that the current 1.0 schema would cease to work, since the
definition of xsd:string, used in many places in VoiceXML, doesn't account
for new XML 1.1 characters.

XML Schema 1.1 is expected to address this problem [1] and would thus allow
us to write a 1.1 schema for VoiceXML 2.1 based on XML 1.1. 
XMLSchema 1.1 is not yet aligned with XML 1.1 yet (e.g. see [2]); thus, the
VBWG has chosen to leave VoiceXML 2.1 dependent on XML 1.0 only.
The VBWG will address this issue in a future version of VoiceXML.

Regards,
Matt

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema11-2-20050224/reqs.html#xml1.1
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema11-2-20050224/datatypes.html#string

-----Original Message-----
From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 2:36 AM
To: MattO
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VBWG official response to last call issue


Hello,

Le mardi 08 mars 2005 ŗ 17:35 -0800, MattO a ťcrit :
> The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) has almost finished resolving 
> the issues raised during the last call review of the 28 July 2004 
> working draft of VoiceXML 2.1 [1]. Although your feedback was based on 
> the First Working Draft, the specification did not change radically, 
> and we have evaluated your requests against the LCWD [1]. Our 
> apologies that it has taken so long to respond.

Thanks for taking the time to look at my comments; unless specifically
indicated below, I'm satisfied with the VBWG's resolutions.

> "- it's not clear which sections are normative and which are simply 
> informative"
> 
> VBWG Response: Rejected
> The sections of the document in the main body are normative unless 
> otherwise specified. [...]

While this is a perfectly reasonable policy, the reader has no way to guess
it; why not simply mentioning it somewhere in the introduction or in the
conformance clause?

> "- the notion of XML well-formed document is bound to XML 1.0 in the 
> spec; is there any discussion on accepting also XML 1.1?"
> 
> VBWG Response: N/A
> The VBWG is currently investigating the feasibility of resolving this 
> issue. We will get back to you with an official response within a 
> week.

I'm looking forward to it, thanks!

> "- this may be planned for an more advanced draft, but having a table 
> with all the elements and attributes defined by VoiceXML 2.1 would be 
> great (like in HTML 4.01 [3])"
> 
> VBWG Response: Accepted
> A table of elements has been added to the introduction (1.1).

Is there an editors draft I could look at to see the end results?

Thanks,

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 16:14:25 GMT

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