W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: April CCXML: test case conflicts with ECMA rules - ISSUE-677

From: Dan Evans <devans@invores.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:49:33 -0400
To: "www-voice@w3.org" <www-voice@w3.org>
Message-id: <4C0D150D.5000007@invores.com>
Paolo,

If ISSUE-677 is to be rejected, I think the statement made by RJ in his Email of 4/25 needs to find its way into the CCXML CR:

"It is the intent that each of the executable content items (var, assign, script and so on) should be executed and fed to the ecmascript interpreter one at a time."

ISSUE-677 was really about whether certain transformations could be made to a CCXML document in the name of efficiency, and a rejection basically says "no."  CCXML addresses efficiency (Section 3.3), and I think the addition of the above statement would clarify the standard in terms of how far one can go to optimize the execution of a CCXML document.

Dan

On 6/7/2010 11:02 AM, Baggia Paolo wrote:
> Chris,
>
> we reviewed and discussed your comments on CCXML.1.0 scooping.
>
> ISSUE-677:
>
> Proposed Resolution: Reject
>
> In our opinion ISSUE-677 on #798 in 8_4.txml, is correctly testing
> the scope chain of CCXML (in Sect 8.2.1.1).
>
> Where the first 'if' is meant to see if the variable is resolved
> in the 'session' scope, then other scopes are tested as well.
>
> After discussion your request is pending reject.
>
> Please explicitly confirm that you accept the proposed resolution or after one week we will consider implicitly accepted the resolution. If you need clarification, please ask them very soon.
>
> Regards,
> Paolo
>
>

-- 
Dan Evans
Invores Systems
o. 800-795-2304
c. 516-410-0169
s. sip:5002@sip.invores.com:5062
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:20:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 June 2010 16:20:44 GMT