accept or reject is ok.

Regards,
Chris

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
    


  


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