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

Re: April CCXML, 7_2: combination of attributes in <dialogstart>

From: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:59:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4C445A56.40803@optimsys.cz>
To: www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>
Hello www-voice,

We haven't received any response to this issue. Could you please look 
into this because it's blocking us in the new Implementation Report.

Thanks,
Petr

On 27.5.2010 17:29, Petr Kuba wrote:
> Hello www-voice,
>
> In 7_2.txml, assertions 340, 342, 347, 349, 366, 368, 370, 373, and 1186
> test the following features in <dialogstart>:
>
> (1) The src, type, namelist, maxage, maxstale, enctype, method, and
> parameters attributes MUST NOT be specified in conjunction with the
> prepareddialogid attribute.
>
> (2) If the prepareddialogid attribute is specified and any attribute
> values conflict with the values specified in the <dialogprepare> element
> this MUST result in the throwing of an error.dialog.notstarted event.
>
> ------
>
> We believe that the incorrect combination of mutually exclusive
> attributes in (1) should be handled according to 9.5.1 Fetching &
> compilation errors:
>
> "Errors that occur in trying to load and compile a CCXML document, such
> as ... validation errors (Including checks for mutually exclusive
> attributes...)"
>
> Therefore these errors should result in error.createccxml or error.fetch
> instead of error.dialog.notstarted.
>
> ------
>
> Thus (2) could apply only on the connectionid and conferenceid
> attributes. However, the Specification states in description of these
> attributes:
>
> "If the dialog was previously prepared using a <dialogprepare> element
> with a connectionid or conferenceid specified, and this attribute is
> also specified, execution of the <dialogstart> MUST fail with an
> error.dialog.notstarted event."
>
> Therefore the conflict in (2) cannot occur because it is not allowed to
> use connectionid / conferenceid in both <dialogprepare> and <dialogstart>.
>
> We recommend to remove the statement (2) from the specification (Section
> 7.2.2.1, paragraph 4).
>
>
> Thanks,
> Petr
>
Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 14:00:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 July 2010 14:00:33 GMT