[resent to correct list address]
Forwarded message 1
Hi,
>>1. Your comments were submitted outside the Last Call period which ended
>>on 6 October 2006 as stated in [1].
Agreed... ;)
>> This allows, for example, grammars to be conditionally enabled or
disabled >> at run-time.
But am not sure whether any voicexml processor will activate the grammar
based on the URI...To me a better way to do that is with 'modal' attribute
and playing with scopes...And I am not able to visualize any use case for
grammar with URI present at dialog level or above.
I will elaborate my point with an example...
<vxml xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml">
<var name="xyz" expr="'MyUri0'"/>
<form>
<grammar srcexpr="xyz"/>
<block>
<assign name="xyz" expr="'MyUri1'"/>
</block>
<field name="field1">
Collect input
</field>
<block>
<assign name="xyz" expr="'MyUri2'"/>
</block>
<field name="field2">
Collect input
</field>
In this case I don't think that there is any value add that we get by
putting this grammar at dialog level..since each time Uri is to be evaluated
and the VoiceXML processor has to get the grammar defined with the ASR. But
grammars at dialog level or above can be directly reused by other input
items, once that grammar is defined.
(So, it is reasonable that grammar 'MyUri0' is reused by both filed1 and
fiel2 or it SHOULD better be inside input item. (field2 and field1))
Also, for field2 should both the grammars with Uri MyUri1 and MyUri2 must be
active or only one with MyUri2 must be active ??
So...by putting such kindof restriction (refer to below mail) any ambiguity
can be avoided.
Please let me know about your views on this. ;)
Regards,
Harbhanu
****************************************************************************
***********
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information
from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address
is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
(including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction,
or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!
-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Matt Oshry
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:38 AM
To: harbhanu@huawei.com
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: RE: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1
Harbhanu,
Thank you for your comments regarding VoiceXML 2.1. Your change request
has been rejected for the following reasons:
1. Your comments were submitted outside the Last Call period which ended
on 6 October 2006 as stated in [1].
2. As stated in the VoiceXML 2.1 specification, the expression
associated with the srcexpr attribute of the <grammar> tag "must be
evaluated each time the grammar needs to be activated." This allows, for
example, grammars to be conditionally enabled or disabled at run-time.
Matt Oshry
Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-voicexml21-20060915/
________________________________
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of harbhanu
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:48 AM
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1
Hi,
VoiceXML 2.1 specification extends the <grammar> element to support
dynamically generated URIs for grammar.(by addition of 'srcexpr'
attribute).
I suggest that the same should only be allowed for formitem level
grammars. Otherwise for all the grammars declared at dialog scope (or
above), the URI has to re-evaluated and the grammar has to be defined
again for each input item. This actually defies the concept of keeping a
grammar at dialog level.
Also, am not able to find any use case to have the same (at dialog level
or above) in any VoiceXML document.
Since, this is not added as a restriction in VoiceXML2.1 specification,
all the compliant processors will anyways has to support this. So, this
can be added as a restriction for grammar element with 'srcexpr'
attribute.
Please let me know about your comments on this.
Regards,
Harbhanu