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

RE: April CCXML: problem in test document 8_2_1_A.txml - ISSUE-676

From: Baggia Paolo <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:28:08 +0200
To: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>, Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
CC: www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>, Baggia Paolo <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com>
Message-ID: <20E062AE0851CC41B7FBECC23638796F3946464507@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local>
Matthew and Chris,

ISSUE-676:

NEW Proposed Resolution: Reject

After your reply, the resolutions for ISSUE-676 and also ISSUE-673
were reviewed because your comment on promote interoperability it is valid.

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Wilson [mailto:matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: marted́ 1 giugno 2010 16.49
To: Baggia Paolo
Cc: Chris Davis; www-voice; W3C Voice Browser Working Group
Subject: Re: April CCXML: problem in test document 8_2_1_A.txml - ISSUE-676

Although I don't feel very strongly about this, adding the semi-colon to 
the script seems the wrong choice to me. If the goal of the IR is to 
promote interopability, then testing whether automatic semicolon 
insertion is performed seems like a useful part of that testing.

Matthew

On 01/06/2010 15:18, Baggia Paolo wrote:
> Matthew and Chris,
>
> We are in the process to address all ISSUES related to IR. The goal is to re-publish the CCXML-IR in a short term.
> 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.
>
> Paolo Baggia
> Author of CCXML-IR Plan
>
> ISSUE-676:
>
> Proposed Resolution: Accept
>
> You are right a semicolon will be added on line 110 of file 8_2_1_A.txml, even if many processors aren't complaining for that, but to make the IR more robust is valuable.
>
> =================================
> Matthew and Chris:
>
> This is being tracked as ISSUE-676.
>
> It is indeed intended that Automatic semicolon insertion would make that script run correctly.
>
> Chris: Does this resolve your question and concern?
>
> 	RJ
>
> ---
> RJ Auburn
> CTO, Voxeo Corporation
> Chair, Editor and Chair, CCXML, VBWG, W3C
>
> Come join us at our Voxeo Customer Summit, June 21st - June 23rd at the Hard Rock Hotel, register today for your All Access Pass:
> http://www.voxeo.com/summits/customer
>
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Matthew Wilson wrote:
>
>>> The 8_2_1_A.txml file from
>>> http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/ccxml10-irp-20100331.zip
>>> is missing a semicolon:
>>>
>>> line 110 is
>>> <script>t_ASSERT_REASON = assertions[assert_index].reason</script>
>>>
>>> but should be
>>> <script>t_ASSERT_REASON = assertions[assert_index].reason;</script>
>>>
>>
>> Shouldn't either version work? Isn't this covered by "Automatic semicolon insertion" in the ECMAScript spec?
>>
>> Matthew Wilson
>
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:28:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:28:48 GMT