W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: VoiceXML 2.1: mandatory script media types

From: Matt Oshry <matto@tellme.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:21:56 -0800
Message-ID: <B8E24C3AF01492459438BFA2D6ECBF73048C0C90@EXCH.sea.tellme.com>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

Bjoern,

The features specified in VoiceXML 2.1 are orthogonal additions to the VoiceXML 2.0 language. The features specified in VoiceXML 2.1 do not break compatibility with the features described in VoiceXML 2.0. This was one of the base criteria for any of the features that made it into the specification. Another criteria was that there be multiple implementations of any required feature and at least one implementation of any optional feature. Needless to say the group was rigorous about coming up with the feature set in VoiceXML 2.1 based on these criteria.

>>Why is it a good thing that VoiceXML 2.0 does not gurantee support for a specific media type?
The VBWG did not indicate to you that it was 'a good thing'. We merely stated a fact and feel that we can live with this fact given the above criteria and that inspection of the media type is not essential in order to attempt to parse the external resource as ECMAScript.

Matt Oshry
Voice Browser Working Group
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:30 PM
To: Matt Oshry
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Re: VoiceXML 2.1: mandatory script media types

* Matt Oshry wrote:
>As specified in 5.3.12 of the VoiceXML 2.0 specification, ECMAScript 
>262 is the required scripting language for VoiceXML; no requirements 
>were specified on the media type(s) that must be accepted when fetching 
>an external script. To maintain backwards compatibility with VoiceXML 
>2.0, VoiceXML 2.1 will not impose any new requirements in this vain.

Could you elaborate on why it is important to maintain backwards compatibility here and not for all the other new requirements in VoiceXML 2.1? Why is it a good thing that VoiceXML 2.0 does not gurantee support for a specific media type? Should authors use non- standard media types like application/x-javascript as the VoiceXML test suite does?
--
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 Friday, 18 November 2005 00:21:58 GMT

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