I am ok with accept or reject on this. I had originally thought the missing semicolon
was a script problem I was seeing but it turned out to be something else.

Regards,
Chris

Baggia Paolo wrote:
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-673:

Proposed Resolution: Accept

You are right a semicolon will be added on line 89 of file 9_2_4_A.txml,
even if many processors aren't complaining for that, but to make the IR more robust is valuable.

=================================
Chris:

This is tracked as ISSUE-673. 

I agree this seems to be a typo. WE will correct this in the test suite. 

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
Chair, Editor and Chair, CCXML, VBWG, W3C

On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:05 PM, Chris Davis wrote:

  
Hello www-voice,

I'm looking at the CCXML Version 1.0 Candidate Recommendation 1 April 2010
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/).

The conformance test case file 9_2_4_A.txml which is part of
the archive http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/ccxml10-irp-20100331.zip
has an error.

line 89 reads:
<script>t_ASSERT_REASON = assertions[assert_index].reason</script>

The fix is to make line 89 be instead:
<script>t_ASSERT_REASON = assertions[assert_index].reason;</script>

The missing semicolon causes javascript to blow up.

Thanks,
Chris

-- 
Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
512-502-9969x117
    


  


-- 
Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
512-502-9969x117