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

Re: Foreach description discrepancies

From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:18:16 +0000
To: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24prtgzxz.fsf@ooomph.local>


Hi Petr,

Thanks for your comments. They will be discussed in the WG, but let me
write some personal responses and questions (inline below):

Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz> writes:

> 1. Content of <foreach> in executable content except within a <prompt>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Original text (first parahraph of Section 6):
> "Within executable content, except within a <prompt>, the <foreach>
> element may contain any elements of executable content"

> Comment:
> We beleive that it was ment that it may contain any elements of executable
> content and nothing more. However, the foreach-full.type definition in the
> XML Schema that applies to the <foreach> in executable content except
> within a <prompt> allows also the following children:
> break, emphasis, mark, phoneme, prosody, say-as, sub, voice, p, s
> which is probably not what was ment. It would introduce an inconsistency
> because the named elements must be in other situations enclosed in
> a <prompt> element.

> Proposed change:
> Remove the elements that cannot appear in executable content from the
> XML Schema.

I think you are correct. I'll take a look at fixing the schema.

> 2. Differences in <prompt> and <enumerate> content
> --------------------------------------------------
> The text in the first parahraph of Section 6 explicitly enumerates
> differencies in <prompt> and <enumerate> content but forgot to
> mention the <foreach> tag.

> Original text:
> "When <foreach> appears within a <prompt> element, it may contain only
> those elements valid within <enumerate> (i.e. the same elements allowed
> within <prompt> less <meta>, <metadata>, and <lexicon>); ..."

> Proposed change:
> "When <foreach> appears within a <prompt> element, it may contain only
> those elements valid within <enumerate> (i.e. the same elements allowed
> within <prompt> less <meta>, <metadata>, <lexicon>, and <foreach>); ..."

This relates to 3, right? If foreach elements can be nested, then the text
doesn't need to change.

> 3. Nesting of <foreach> in <prompt>
> -----------------------------------
> The XML Schema allows the <foreach> tag to be only a direct child of the
> <prompt> tag. Thus, nesting is not possible. Is there any rationale behind
> not allowing nesting of <foreach> in prompts? Allowing the <foreach> tag
> to be a child of another <foreach> tag in prompts would cause no harm and
> could be sometimes helpful. Moreover, nesting of <foreach> within
> executable content except within a prompt is possible.

> Proposed change:
> We do not propose any change in this respect, we would just like to get
> some rationale for the current situation. Perhaps it could be explicitly
> stated in the spec that nesting of <foreach> in prompts is not possible?

I don't think we intentionally wanted to forbid nested <foreach>, but
we'll need to discuss it.

Max.
Received on Monday, 18 December 2006 12:18:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 December 2006 12:18:30 GMT