RE: VoiceXML 2.1: mandatory script media types

Bjoern,

You have interpreted the Voice Browser Working Group's position on these issues correctly. Although the VBWG is willing to consider this change as input into the VoiceXML 3.0 specification process, let us know if would prefer that we register a formal objection on your behalf in the VoiceXML 2.1 Disposition of Comments as we present the VoiceXML 2.1 specification for consideration as a Proposed Recommendation.

Matt Oshry
Voice Browser Working Group
-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:57 PM
To: Matt Oshry
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: 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 19:07:04 UTC