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

RE: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1

From: Matt Oshry <matto@tellme.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:21:18 -0800
Message-ID: <FA934E050E4E254E87339959D53F5C0BFD95C7@EXM01.sea.tellme.com>
To: <harbhanu@huawei.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

Harbhanu,

Feel free to elaborate.

Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: harbhanu [mailto:harbhanu@huawei.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:27 AM
To: Matt Oshry
Subject: RE: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1

Hi Matt,
I am not satisfied with the current resolution.

I think sufficient heed is not given to the below mentioned examples or
may be I was not able to put forth my point correctly.

Please let me know in case you need me to elaborate more on the same.

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: Matt Oshry [mailto:matto@tellme.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:07 AM
To: harbhanu@huawei.com
Subject: RE: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1

Harbhanu,

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) is completing its resolution of
issues raised during the review of the Last Call Working Draft version
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 '124':

The VBWG considers the use case described in [4] sufficient to justify
leaving the specification of the feature as-is in [1]. It has chosen not
to impose your suggested restriction.

Please indicate before 16 February 2007 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 16 February, please let me
know. The 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
16 February 2007, we will assume that you accept our resolution.

Thank you,

Matt Oshry
Chief Editor, VoiceXML 2.1 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-voicexml21-20060915/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006OctDec/0063.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006OctDec/0065.html

-----Original Message-----
From: harbhanu [mailto:harbhanu@huawei.com]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 9:29 PM
To: Matt Oshry
Subject: RE: Suggestion for grammar element in VoiceXML 2.1

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!
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 21:20:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 26 February 2007 21:20:53 GMT