Re: SSML LC Comments

Hi, Dan-

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  This satisfies my comment.

Regards-
-Doug

Dan Burnett wrote (on 9/17/08 9:20 PM):
> Dear Doug,
> 
> Thank you for your comments.  Our responses are embedded below, preceded
> by "DB>>".
> If you have any concerns with our responses, please let us know.  If we
> do not hear from you within two weeks of today we will assume that you
> have accepted our resolutions.
> 
> Dan Burnett
> SSML 1.1 Co-Editor
> Voice Browser Working Group
> 
> On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>
>> Hi, VBWG-
>>
>> I was asked for my review from the perspective of compound documents
>> for section 2.2.3 (Using SSML with other Namespaces),
>>
>> My high level comment is that, though this section is in the
>> conformance section and does use some normative language ("The
>> synthesis namespace MAY be used with other XML namespaces as per the
>> appropriate Namespaces in XML Recommendation"), it does not introduce
>> any specific mechanism beyond those already provided in the Namespaces
>> in XML specification. Is this intended to be tested?
> 
> DB>> Resolution:  Accepted (Question only)
> DB>> Explanation:  We do not intend for SSML implementers to test this,
> although embedders of SSML
> DB>> may wish to.  As an example, VoiceXML 3 is likely to permit SSML
> (in the SSML namespace) as
> DB>> content for certain of its elements.  We would expect VoiceXML 3
> implementation reports to test
> DB>> this.
> 
>>
>> The example given looked fine from a technical standpoint (that is,
>> the markup looks correct).  It would be helpful to explain the example
>> more, to explain what the use case it is trying to solve is.  In
>> general, it would be nice to see a few more use cases that explain why
>> an author would want to mix other namespaced content in, and examples
>> how to do it... this would include examples where SSML is the host
>> language, and where it is the supplementary language.
>>
>> I don't think these comments are critical for the specification, but
>> more consideration of the mixed-namespace scenario may lead to wider
>> use of SSML on Web resources targeted for desktop browsers as well as
>> voice browsers.  This might be explored more in a supplementary
>> document, such as a tutorial.
>>
> 
> DB>> Resolution:  Accepted with modifications
> DB>> Explanation:  We, the active members of the working group, are and
> have been primarily
> DB>> interested in using SSML with VoiceXML and/or SMIL, both of which
> have examples in the
> DB>> specification document.  We are not experts in or particularly
> aware of other uses of the
> DB>> language, but we would be happy to include examples from you or
> others that demonstrate new
> DB>> uses.  The idea of a supplementary document is interesting to us;
> we would be happy to assist
> DB>> anyone who would like to develop such a tutorial.
> 
>> Regards-
>> -Doug Schepers
>> W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
>>
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 02:48:05 UTC