W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Query in CCXML 1.0 Specification.

From: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:50:12 -0500
Message-Id: <BE7728A8-0A17-443C-B152-4CA5DA538D39@voxeo.com>
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
To: Nagesh S <nageshs@huawei.com>

Nagesh:

Thanks for these comments. The working group will form a reply to  
your issues very shortly.

Regards:

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800



On Feb 2, 2007, at 24:47 AM, Nagesh S wrote:

> Hi,
>
>          Please find some of the queries/changes in the CCXML 1.0,   
> w3c working draft 19 January 2007,
>
> 1)       For the Event, error.createccxml in the section 6.3.8, the  
> “required” field is not mentioned properly, it should be “true”.
>
> 2)       In the events like error.move, error.send.failed, the  
> reason attribute is a mandatory attribute but whereas for the  
> event, connection.disconnected, connection.redirected, and  
> connection.failed, the reason attribute is optional, is it  
> intentional?
>
> 3)       For the <createcall> element, attribute constraints  
> missing for the attribute “joinid” and “joindirection”, saying that  
> the latter should be present if the former is present.
>
> 4)       The DTD file present in the location, http://www.w3.org/TR/ 
> ccxml/ccxml.dtd. is not consistent with the element attributes  
> mentioned in the specification. Eg: in the <send> element, the  
> attribute data is removed but the DTD is not updated for the same,  
> it is still reflecting data attribute.
>
> 5)       The example given in the section, 10.2.5 does not reflect  
> the new way of accessing the event attributes using the event$.
>
> 6)       In the DTD file present in the location, http://www.w3.org/ 
> TR/ccxml/ccxml.dtd., xmlns attribute is not made a valid attribute  
> for the element <ccxml> and <send> so the DTD validation of the  
> valid CCXML 1.0 complaint document fails when the xmlns attribute  
> is present in the document.
>
> 7)       The connection state diagram provided in the section  
> 10.2.1, the connection state transition from ALERTING to FAILED,  
> can happen because of the “connection.rejected” event, but the same  
> is not present in the specification. My doubt is when the state of  
> the connection transitions to FAILED state after issuing the  
> <reject> command.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance for replying to the queries,
>
> Regards,
>
> Nagesh.
>
> ********************************************************************** 
> ********************************************************************** 
> ********************************************************************** 
> ***************************
>
> 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!
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 12:50:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 February 2007 12:50:51 GMT