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

Re: Foreach description discrepancies

From: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:52:52 -0500
Message-Id: <997CD483-A0F1-4749-B9AA-8AC0F167ACAD@voxeo.com>
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
To: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>

Petr:

Thanks for your comments on the CCXML LCWD specification. The working  
group will reply to your comments very shortly.

Thanks,

	RJ

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



On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Petr Kuba wrote:

>
> Dear WBWG,
>
> We very appreciate the changes to the specification of foreach done in
> the LCWD from 15 September 2006. However, we found few discrepancies
> in what is written in the specification and what is written is the
> corresponding XML Schema.
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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>); ..."
>
> 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?
>
>
> Any comments to our proposals are appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Petr Kuba
>
> -- 
>    Petr Kuba, Project Manager
>    OptimSys, s.r.o
>    kuba@optimsys.cz
>    Tel: +420 541 143 065
>    Fax: +420 541 143 066
>    http://www.optimsys.cz
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 12:54:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 February 2007 12:54:37 GMT