W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [cc] Implementation Report Plan updated - 15 July 2010 (was Re: CCXML 1.0 is published as a Candidate Recommendation)

From: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:29:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4C445345.4060007@optimsys.cz>
To: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
CC: www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>
Hi Kazuyuki,

We have started to test new IR without new CR and we've already met
several problems.

First, since we don't have new CR we can just guess correct behavior
according to the accepted issues and email discussions. So it is harder
to detect problems in the IR.

Second, we've met problems that we already reported in the previous IR
and that haven't been fixed. We will report them in separate emails but
for instance:

1) 7_2: combination of attributes in <dialogstart>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/0111.html
We haven't received any response for this issue yet.

2) 7_1: attribute enctype used with the value of the method "post" in
<dialogprepare>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/0108.html
This is tracked as ISSUE-710 but there is no resolution yet.

Since we don't know whether these issues will be accepted or rejected we
don't know how to behave in these cases. And we don't want to change our
implementation before having resolutions - it would help us to pass all
tests but it would be probably waste of time.

Furthermore, if these issues are accepted it will be necessary to modify
the IR again!

Therefore I believe that to prepare final version of the IR it is
necessary at least to resolve all issues but it would be better to
re-publish the CR as well. If I understand it right, it could be
difficult to fix any issues in the PR.

What do you think?

Regards,
Petr


On 16.7.2010 15:49, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
> Hi Petr,
> 
> Thanks for asking about this.  The Voice Browser Working Group
> discussed whether we should re-publish the Candidate Recommendation
> itself or not, and the conclusion was it should be OK to fix the
> issues in the CR when we publish the PR [e.g., 1] because we thought
> the specification could be tested even with the current CR.
> 
> However, if it's really confusing and difficult to test the spec with
> the current CR published on April 1 [2], I think it's worth
> reconsidering we fix the issues right away and re-publish CR.  I'd
> like to talk about how we should/could do within the group.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010JulSep/0002.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kazuyuki
> 
> 
> On 07/16/2010 09:27 PM, Petr Kuba wrote:
>> Hello Kazuyuki,
>>
>> could you please inform us about intentions of the Working Group in
>> finalizing the Implementation Report and the CCXML Candidate Recommendation?
>>
>> Since some of the issues that appeared in the previous version of IR
>> involved also CR I'm not sure how to test new IR without new version of
>> CR. Shall we assume that the specification will be modified according to
>> the accepted issues or shall we use current version of the specification
>> although it contains bugs?
>>
>> Why have you decided not to change CR?
>>
>> I have to say that current situation looks pretty chaotic to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Petr Kuba
>>
>>
>> On 16.7.2010 0:02, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>> Hi www-voice,
>>>
>>> The "Voice Browser Call Control: CCXML Version 1.0" specification
>>> entered the Candidate Recommendation period on 1 April 2010.  And
>>> there were many thoughtful comments especially about its
>>> Implementation Report Plan document on this Voice Browser public list.
>>>
>>> Now we have modified the Implementation Report Plan document based on
>>> all the public comments, and would like to publish the updated
>>> document today on 15 July 2010 at:
>>>
>>>      http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/
>>>
>>> Please see Appendix E [1] of the document for the detail of the
>>> changes from the previous version.
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> There is no changes in CCXML 1.0 Candidate Recommendation [2] itself.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/#h_changes
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Kazuyuki
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2010 04:44 PM, Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote:
>>>> Hi www-voice,
>>>>
>>>> We are pleased to announce the advancement of "Voice Browser Call
>>>> Control: CCXML Version 1.0" to Candidate Recommendation on April 1.
>>>>
>>>> CCXML provides declarative markup to describe telephony call
>>>> control. It can provide a complete telephony service application,
>>>> comprised of Web server CGI compliant application logic, one or more
>>>> CCXML documents to declare and perform call control actions, and to
>>>> control one or more dialog applications that perform user media
>>>> interactions. CCXML is a language that can be used with a dialog
>>>> system such as (but not limited to) VoiceXML.
>>>>
>>>> The specification is now available as follows.
>>>>
>>>> This version:
>>>>       http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-ccxml-20100401/
>>>>
>>>> Latest version:
>>>>       http://www.w3.org/TR/ccxml/
>>>>
>>>> Please submit your Implementation Reports by May 28.  The
>>>> Implementation Report Plan document is available at:
>>>>
>>>>       http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kazuyuki Ashimura (on behalf of the Voice Browser Working Group co-Chairs)
>>>> Voice Browser Activity Lead
>>>>
>>>
> 
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 13:30:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 July 2010 13:30:18 GMT