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

Re: CCXML: comment on ISSUE-737

From: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 22:58:51 -0400
Cc: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>, www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B6EF8EA6-8E37-4213-ACAB-16457DBC4265@voxeo.com>
To: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
Chris:

In reviewing the email list thread looking for open issues I came across this e-mail. Petr had raised the original issue and on 8/20 (after this e-mail) confirmed to Paolo he was good with our resolution. I just want to make sure you are ok with it as well so we can close out the issue in our tracker database. 

If this is not the case please let us know ASAP and we can reopen the issue if needed. 

Best regards,

	RJ

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800 
skype:zscgeek 



On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Chris Davis wrote:

> Petr,
> 
> Did you quote the correct email? I don't see any discussion of strict vs not-strict
> there. I'm confused about how STRICT is related to the discussion of line-by-line processing
> in that email.
> 
> Regards,
> Chris
> 
> Petr Kuba wrote:
>> Hello Chris,
>> 
>> Have you considered the following email from RJ?
>> 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010JulSep/0003.html
>> 
>> I believe it gives pretty good guide for this issue.
>> 
>> If I understand the new text from RJ the basic behavior is STRICT but no-STRICT optimization is allowed. However, then you should note the last sentence:
>> 
>> "Application developers SHOULD NOT depend on this behavior and SHOULD instead assume code is executed line by line for maximum portability between implementations."
>> 
>> Therefore I reported the problems because I expect that the Implementation Report SHOULD also assume code is executed line by line.
>> Then the tests will pass in both STRICT and no-STRICT modes.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Petr
>> 
>> On 2.8.2010 18:15, Chris Davis wrote:
>>> Hello www-voice,
>>> 
>>> We suspect that Optimsys' repeated issues of "undeclared vars" keeps occurring
>>> because they are running their javascript engine in "STRICT" mode.
>>> Previous issues raised by Optimsys on the same subject are 727, 715 and 709.
>>> 
>>> We never saw in the spec where "STRICT" is required so we don't run our engine
>>> configured that way and as a result we pass these tests.
>>> 
>>> What the spec *does* say is only "Attempting to assign to an undeclared variable causes an
>>>   |error.semantic", and even then that is listed just for the<assign>  tag. We don't see how
>>> that demands STRICT, because we assume this is just for the<assign>  tag.
>>> We check that with a pre-pass and thus pass tests that check such behavior (like #729).
>>> 
>>> We request that a final ruling be made: STRICT or no-STRICT? The decision should go in
>>> the recommendation. If STRICT then you could also strike defining some behaviors of STRICT
>>> such as the text under the<assign>  tag. If the decision is no-STRICT then issues 737,727,715, and 709
>>> should all be rejected.
>>> 
>>> We lobby for a no-STRICT decision, as this would allow the most 3rd party javascript to run inside CCXML.
>>> It has been our observation that many web-browsers(like firefox) run in no-STRICT mode and as a result
>>> there is a huge amount of no-STRICT code out there.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Chris
>>> |
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Chris Davis
>>> Interact Incorporated R&D
>>> 512-502-9969x117
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Chris Davis
> Interact Incorporated R&D
> 512-502-9969x117
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 02:59:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 September 2010 02:59:32 GMT