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

issue-677

From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:25:02 -0500
Message-ID: <4C2A023E.4070805@iivip.com>
To: paolo.baggia@loquendo.com
CC: www-voice@w3.org
Paolo,

On June 7 I asked for but never received clarification as to why 
issue-677 was "reject".

I never heard the decision makers comment on the performance impacts of 
line-by-line
processing of ECMA (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/0062.html),
nor was any defense offered about why a CCXML <transition> should have 
ECMA variable scoping
that is completely different from normal ECMA processing within CCXML's 
<script> tag
(see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/att-0055/00-part).

The current state of the recommendation and test cases is as follows:
1) <script> is fed to ECMA all at once and therefore uses normal ECMA 
scoping rules
2) <var> and <if> inside a <transition> are fed line-by-line resulting 
in new scoping behavior
different from normal ECMA

Why is this discrepancy ok?  Is any explanation coming?

Regards,
Chris


-- 
Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
512-502-9969x117
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 14:25:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 June 2010 14:25:54 GMT