RE: VoiceXML 2.1: Organization of the 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 '111-22':

The Voice Browser Working Group considered the pros and cons of authoring a specification that duplicates all of the functionality in the previous version of VoiceXML 2.0 vs. only including the set of new features (aka the diff). The VBWG has chosen and continues to choose the latter approach for VoiceXML 2.1. The meager size of the diff did not warrant the effort involved in duplicating the 2.0 spec. In addition, the VBWG desires to make the importance of backwards compatibility clear by forcing readers to refer back to the VoiceXML 2.0 specification as the source of truth for the majority of functionality that comprises both VoiceXML 2.0 and VoiceXML 2.1.

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/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#cfi
-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern Hoehrmann
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 2:14 PM
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: VoiceXML 2.1: Organization of the document


Dear Voice Browser Working Group,

  The organization of http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-voicexml21-20050613/
as a set of extensions to VoiceXML 2.0 is problematic. Readers who are not familiar with VoiceXML 2.0 would have to consult two specifications to understand VoiceXML 2.1 and more experienced readers would have to know for each feature when it was introduced e.g. to point other people to the normative definition of an element.

It's also difficult to review the document, it is for example not always clear which VoiceXML 2.0 requirements also apply to 2.1 documents and implementations, and reviewers will likely fail to catch problems that are inherited from VoiceXML 2.0; for example, VoiceXML 2.0 references RFC 1521 and RFC 2396 normatively (both of which are obsolete now) but VoiceXML 2.1 does not seem to take that into account. The VoiceXML 2.0 errata is also empty.

This organization of a specification for a new version of a W3C tech- nology also caused some concern for other drafts, for example, SMIL 2.1 and SVG 1.2 were originally organized in a similar way like VoiceXML 2.1 but the Working Groups reconsidered this approach and future versions of these documents will be complete specifications.

I think VoiceXML 2.1 should be a complete specification rather than a set of extensions.

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 Tuesday, 8 November 2005 07:03:39 UTC