RE: sendid

I agree with both of Dan's points.  Let's please focus on getting the spec done, and not on changes that might be nice.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Burnett [mailto:dburnett@voxeo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: David Junger; Voice Public List
Subject: Re: sendid

Jim and David,

As chair of the Voice Browser Working Group, I'd like to very strongly suggest that we not make changes to SCXML at this point that are not absolutely necessary.

The first Working Draft of SCXML was published in late 2005, which must make this specification one of the longest-to-complete in W3C history.

I recommend to you both that David's proposal for changing how sendid works be considered for the next version of SCXML after this one.  There has been enough interest in this specification that a) it will be valuable to finish it soon, and b) there will likely be enough interest for a version 2.0.  Let's get it done!


Daniel C. Burnett



On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Jim Barnett wrote:

> David,
>  OK, we'll consider the two issues separately.  
> 
> We will discuss your proposal for changing how sendid works.  At this point, it's a question of what kinds of changes we're willing to make that aren't bug-related.
> 
> On the issue of sendid in _event, my sense is that it has a limited, but real, usefulness, and that it doesn't cause any actual problems.  Do you disagree?  If so, could you explain in more detail what the problem is?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Junger [mailto:tffy@free.fr] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:41 PM
> To: Voice Public List
> Subject: Re: sendid
> 
> Le 17 apr 2013 à 21:15, Jim Barnett a écrit :
> 
>> Can you clarify the relation between your comment about sendid in _event (at the end of your email), and your proposal for revising sendid?  Are the two comments related or independent of each other?  Your proposal for sendid is clear, but I don't understand your final comment about the sendid field in _event or its relationship to your main proposal.
> 
> Sorry. It is mostly unrelated to my proposal.
> 
> 			David
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:11:22 UTC