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

RE: VBWG Last Call Issue: <?access-control?> PI

From: MattO <matto@tellme.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:05:54 -0800
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d401c5360b$84f2ec20$6401a8c0@sea.tellme.com>

Thanks for your comments, Dan.

The Voice Browser Working Group will register your formal objection.

Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Dan Connolly
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:08 AM
To: MattO
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VBWG Last Call Issue: <?access-control?> PI



On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 17:13 -0800, MattO wrote:
> Dear Dan,
> 
> In response to your request [1], the VBWG requested feedback from the 
> XML Core Working Group [2] on the use of a Processing Instruction in 
> the VoiceXML 2.1 specification. The XML Core WG concluded there is "no 
> strong technical argument against using a PI in this case" [3]. This 
> conclusion was reiterated in [4].

Paul wasn't speaking for the XML Core WG there.
"Note, I have not discussed this with anyone else" -- [4].

> We hope this addresses your concerns.

Well, actually, no, it doesn't. On further reflection, I have more
concerns...

The use of attribute-like syntax in a PI is goofy.
test case:

  <?access-control allow = "voice.roadrunner.edu voice.acme.edu"?>

note the spaces. They are not allowed per the grammar in the spec, but they
would be allowed if it were an element. Is that by design? Please add it to
your test suite to make sure it's flagged as an error by implementations, if
so.

Also, it seems to me that access control is orthogonal
to VoiceXML. There's nothing about access control nor security in the WG's
charter. If there is security work going on, the security community needs to
be invited to participate.


>  If you are not satisfied with the XML
> Core WG's response or the Voice Browser Working Group's decision to 
> leave the Processing Instruction as-is in Appendix E of VoiceXML 2.1, 
> let us know if would like us to register your formal objection in the 
> VoiceXML 2.1 Disposition of Comments as we present the VoiceXML 2.1 
> specification for consideration as a Candidate Recommendation.

Indeed, I am not satisfied and any request to advance should show my
outstanding dissent.

> 
> Sincerely,
> Matt Oshry
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005JanMar/0075.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005JanMar/0074.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005JanMar/0078.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005JanMar/0080.html
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 16:05:55 GMT

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