- From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:42:56 -0500
- To: kuba@optimsys.cz
- CC: rj@voxeo.com, devans@invores.com, www-voice@w3.org
Petr,
VoiceXML is already set in stone. CCXML is still in flux and
not standardized. CCXML uses an entirely different model from
VoiceXML (state transitions as opposed to the FIA).
In addition, CCXML already mandates a different style of ECMA
than from VoiceXML ("compact profile" as opposed to "full").
VoiceXML is but a single dialog type that can be launched
from CCXML - there are others.
My point here is CCXML already has different behavior from VoiceXML.
Even if VoiceXML had mandated a slower line-by-line(LBL) use of ECMA,
I'm not sure it would make sense to also mandate it for newer specifications such
as CCXML because it is an inefficient use of ECMA.
Finally, there may not even be a VoiceXML IR test case (for either 2.0 or 2.1)
that will have the LBL vs FAST issue( I personally do not know ).
Regards,
Chris
>RJ,
>
>As far as I know the same issue applies also to VoiceXML. Have you
>considered this? Do you intend to introduce a different behavior to
>CCXML and VoiceXML?
>
>Regards,
>Petr
--
Chris Davis
Interact Incorporated R&D
512-502-9969x117
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 17:43:35 UTC