W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2009

Regarding posting ccxml.exit to parent upon child getting a ccxml.kill event

From: Rajesh N <rajeshn@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:33:02 +0530
To: www-voice@w3.org
Message-id: <001801c98b23$b545da60$2512120a@china.huawei.com>
I have a doubt regarding the ccxml.exit event posted to the parent session
when the child session ends.
The spec says.. "This event is generated when a CCXML document executes an
<exit>, having an unhandled "error.*" or ccxml.kill event"
>From my interpretation of this sentence and the subsequent explantion of the
"reason" attribute, I find three possibilities for child session to
a) Child session encounters an <exit> element in any transition (normal
event / error event / kill event)
b) Child session recieves an(y) error event (error.*), but there is no
transition to handle it.
c) Child session recieves a ccxml.kill event. 
My doubt is regarding option (c) above. There are 3 sub-possibilities for
this case:
(i) Child session has a transition to handle to ccxml.kill event and the
transition also has an <exit> element. Event handling results in the
processing of <exit>.
(ii) Child session has a transition to handle to ccxml.kill event, BUT the
transition DOES NOT have an <exit> element. 
(iii) Child session DOES NOT have a transition for ccxml.kill event
The child session should terminate in all these cases. Should ccxml.exit be
posted to parent session in all these cases?
The basic reason for this doubt  is a small level of ambiguity associated
with the phrase "having an unhandled "error.*" or ccxml.kill event". Does
the "unhandled" apply to only error.* or both error.* and ccxml.kill?
Please clarify.
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 02:03:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:40 UTC