RE: VoiceXML 2.1: conforming VoiceXML 2.1 document

Bjoern,

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is now completing its resolution of issues raised during the review of the Candidate Recommendation version of VoiceXML 2.1 [1]. Our apologies that it has taken so long to respond.

Following the process described in [2] for advancement to Proposed Recommendation, this is the VBWG's formal response to the issue you raised, identified as '111-2':

The language in C.1 of VoiceXML 2.1 will be modified to clarify that, in order to be a conforming VoiceXML 2.1 document, said document must adhere to the VoiceXML 2.1 specification and that it must meet all of the criteria listed in items 1 through 6 of C.1. Item 5 will also be amended to indicate that a document is conforming if it is valid per the normative VoiceXML 2.1 schema.

Please indicate before 14 November 2005 whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution, whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.

If you do not think you can respond before 14 November, please let me know. The Director will appreciate a response as to whether or not you agree with the resolution. However, if we do not hear from you at all by 14 November 2005, we will assume that you accept our resolutions.

Thank you,

Matt Oshry
Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/  

-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:16 PM
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: VoiceXML 2.1: conforming VoiceXML 2.1 document


Dear Voice Browser Working Group,

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/ appendix C.1 states

[...]
  A conforming VoiceXML 2.1 document is a well-formed [XML] document
  that requires only the facilities described as mandatory in this
  specification and in [VXML2]. Such a document must meet all of the
  following criteria:
[...]

It's not clear to me how a document can require facilities, what it means for a feature to be described as "mandatory" and the reference to VoiceXML 2.0 seems to imply that only the intersection of mandatory VoiceXML 2.0 and VoiceXML 2.1 facilities can be used, which seems to make little sense.

It is further not clear whether the statement above is the complete definition of conforming VoiceXML 2.1 documents, or whether the list that follows it specified additional requirements (or whether the list of requirements is equivalent to the statement).

Please change the document such that VoiceXML 2.1 document conformance is well-defined.

regards,
--
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 Monday, 7 November 2005 21:50:19 UTC