W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2006

FW: R117: Comments on LCWD, application.lastresult$

From: Matt Oshry <matto@tellme.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:13:34 -0800
Message-ID: <FA934E050E4E254E87339959D53F5C0BBF4276@EXM01.sea.tellme.com>
To: <www-voice@w3.org>

Forwarding to www-voice for archiving purposes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Göbel [mailto:tgoebel@voiceobjects.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:32 PM
To: Matt Oshry
Subject: RE: R117: Comments on LCWD, application.lastresult$

Hi,

there is at least one platform that only supports the use case you mention in the VXML 2.1 spec:
<nomatch count="3">
        <var name="the_recording" 
          expr="application.lastresult$.recording"/>
        <submit method="post" 
          enctype="multipart/form-data" 
          next="upload.cgi"
          namelist="the_recording"/>
</nomatch>

I.e., assigning the application.lastresult$.recording to a variable before submitting it. Trying to put it directly in the namelist of the <submit> fails on this platform.
I agree that no clarifying text is necessary, as 5.3.8 of VXML2 is quite clear. But maybe you could consider modifying the example such that the recording is not first assigned to a variable:
<nomatch count="3">
        <submit method="post" 
          enctype="multipart/form-data" 
          next="upload.cgi"
          namelist="application.lastresult$.recording"/>
</nomatch>

Thanks and regards
Tobias,-

Tobias Göbel
Program Manager
VoiceObjects GmbH 

This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended above named recipient(s). Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.



-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Oshry [mailto:matto@tellme.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. November 2006 02:09
To: Tobias Göbel
Subject: R117: Comments on LCWD, application.lastresult$


Tobias,

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is completing its resolution of issues raised during the review of the most recent Last Call Working Draft of VoiceXML 2.1 [1].
 
Following the process described in [2] for advancement to Proposed Recommendation, this is the VBWG's formal response to the issue you raised in [3], identified as 'R117':

The example is informative. application.lastresult$.recording can be submitted without the use of a temporary variable. The VBWG feels that no clarifying text is required here. The behavior of &lt;submit&gt; is described adequately in 5.3.8 of VXML2:

"If a namelist is supplied, it may contain individual variable references which are submitted with the same qualification used in the namelist. Declared VoiceXML and ECMAScript variables can be referenced."

Please indicate before 4 December 2006 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 4 December 2006, please let me know. The W3C 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 4 December 2006, we will assume that you accept our resolutions.

Thank you,

Matt Oshry
Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-voicexml21-20060915/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JulSep/0056.html
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 17:13:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 November 2006 17:13:43 GMT