Re: VoiceXML 2.1: mandatory script media types

* Matt Oshry wrote:
>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.

My understanding is that the W3C TAG considers such behavior incorrect
and dangerous and that agents must not act this way without consent of
its user. I am concerned about implementations that act according to
this principle but do not support the ECMAScript media type application/
ecmascript, or do support some ECMAScript/JavaScript but do not behave
in accord with the specification of these media types, e.g. character
encoding detection problems might arise which will make it difficult to
create VoiceXML content that conforms to the relevant specifications and
interoperates with all VoiceXML implementations. This concern applies in
particular to VoiceXML documents referring to scripts not restricted to
US-ASCII; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2005AprJun/0073
is also relevant to this point.

I agree that there should be multiple interoperable implementations of
this requirement, in fact, ensuring that is the whole point of my re-
quest, and if there are VoiceXML 2.1 implementations that do not support
application/ecmascript or do so improperly, that just supports my point.
It still seems the main reason to reject this issue is because VoiceXML
2.0 had the same problem, that does not really satisfy me. As I pointed
out, various other W3C technical reports take this problem into account
and require specific ECMAScript media types, SVG 1.2 and WICD 1.0 for
example.
-- 
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 00:56:27 UTC