www-voice@w3.org from January to March 2013 by author

artur.lugmayr@tut.fi

• :: Academic MindTrek Conference 2013 :: DEADLINE FOR WORKSHOPS & TUTORIALS 28th APRIL 2013 :: Cf Papers, Posters, Tutorials, Extended Abstracts, Demos, and Workshops (Tuesday, 12 February)

chris nuernberger

• Re: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: preemption again (sigh...) (Friday, 1 March)
• Re: preemption again (sigh...) (Thursday, 28 February)
• Re: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: revised enterStates (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: It would be a lot cooler if: (Wednesday, 13 February)
• It would be a lot cooler if: (Wednesday, 13 February)
• data id verse assign location (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Memory element (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: Illegal configuration with history in pseudocode (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: More Problems with Preemption (Thursday, 7 February)

Cindy-Sue Causey

• Re: subscribe does not work (Monday, 21 January)

David Junger

• Re: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• Re: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: again a bad initial target in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: bad initial target in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Default target of <send> (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Default target of <send> (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Monday, 11 February)
• Transition order (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: More Problems with Preemption (Thursday, 7 February)
• Re: Unique ids for transitions (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: ISSUE-822 (Thursday, 17 January)
• Re: ISSUE-822 (Thursday, 17 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Wednesday, 9 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Wednesday, 9 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Wednesday, 9 January)

Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka

• subscribe does not work (Monday, 21 January)

Gavin Kistner

• Re: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Wednesday, 20 February)
• Re: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Tuesday, 19 February)
• On <scxml> not being a <state> (Tuesday, 19 February)
• Re: Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Thursday, 14 February)
• Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Thursday, 14 February)
• Adding history states with recorded history (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: Fallback for LCCA when <scxml> is included (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Fallback for LCCA when <scxml> is included (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Guarding against infinite loops and other poorly-designed machines (Wednesday, 6 February)
• More Problems with Preemption (Wednesday, 6 February)
• Unique ids for transitions (Thursday, 31 January)
• Exiting an entire <parallel> due to an external transition (Thursday, 31 January)
• Re: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: Determining When a Machine is Final (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Determining When a Machine is Final (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Does <send> place events on the internal or external queue? (Monday, 28 January)
• <send> expressions in example G.1 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: ISSUE-826: comments from Gavin Kistner [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Saturday, 26 January)
• My experience and issues implementing an SCXML Interpreter (Thursday, 24 January)

Jacob Beard

• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Sunday, 10 February)
• Link to scxml-strict.xsd points to scxml.xsd (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Wednesday, 9 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Wednesday, 9 January)

Jim Barnett

• RE: DOM in _event.data and KVPs (Sunday, 31 March)
• RE: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• RE: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: wrong tag and missing attribute in the SCXML document example (Thursday, 28 March)
• RE: some tests for SCXML (Thursday, 28 March)
• some tests for SCXML (Monday, 18 March)
• RE: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• RE: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• RE: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• RE: revised mainEventLoop (Friday, 8 March)
• RE: preemption again (sigh...) (Thursday, 28 February)
• preemption again (sigh...) (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• RE: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• RE: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• RE: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• proposed new definition of preemption (Monday, 25 February)
• revised mainEventLoop (Thursday, 21 February)
• RE: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Tuesday, 19 February)
• RE: revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• RE: revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• revisiting preemption (Monday, 18 February)
• RE: Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Friday, 15 February)
• RE: Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: Run global <script> before or after <datamodel> initialization? (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: revised enterStates (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: use your SCXML examples in my work (Thursday, 14 February)
• RE: revised enterStates (Thursday, 14 February)
• revised enterStates (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: It would be a lot cooler if: (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: again a bad initial target in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: Adding history states with recorded history (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: data id verse assign location (Wednesday, 13 February)
• RE: Fallback for LCCA when <scxml> is included (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: Memory element (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: Default target of <send> (Tuesday, 12 February)
• RE: Transition order (Sunday, 10 February)
• RE: Reentering child of parallel state leaves all childs? (Sunday, 10 February)
• RE: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• RE: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• RE: Reentering child of parallel state leaves all childs? (Saturday, 9 February)
• RE: ISSUE-830: Bug in transition with target of history state [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-830: Bug in transition with target of history state [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• ISSUE-826 Re: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• ISSUE-826 RE: More Problems with Preemption (Friday, 8 February)
• RE: ISSUE-829: exiting parallel due to external transition [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 1 February)
• RE: ISSUE-828: Unique IDs for Transitions [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 1 February)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Wednesday, 30 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: My experience and issues implementing an SCXML Interpreter (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: Determining When a Machine is Final (Tuesday, 29 January)
• RE: Does <send> place events on the internal or external queue? (Monday, 28 January)
• RE: <send> expressions in example G.1 (Monday, 28 January)
• Re: My experience and issues implementing an SCXML Interpreter (Monday, 28 January)
• RE: ISSUE-826: comments from Gavin Kistner [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Sunday, 27 January)
• RE: ISSUE-826: comments from Gavin Kistner [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 25 January)
• RE: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• RE: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• RE: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• RE: ISSUE-822 (Thursday, 17 January)
• ISSUE-822 (Wednesday, 16 January)
• Re: Problem with validation schema (Wednesday, 16 January)
• Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Monday, 7 January)

Johan Roxendal

• Re: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Wednesday, 30 January)
• Re: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• Re: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• [SCXML] detailing transition preemption (Saturday, 26 January)

legven@gmail.com

• Problem with validation schema (Thursday, 10 January)

Michael Bodell

• RE: preemption again (sigh...) (Thursday, 28 February)
• RE: proposed new definition of preemption (Tuesday, 26 February)
• RE: On <scxml> not being a <state> (Wednesday, 20 February)
• RE: Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• RE: Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• RE: Implement TCP with scxml compliant state machine (Monday, 11 February)
• RE: Guarding against infinite loops and other poorly-designed machines (Thursday, 7 February)

Pierre.Wellner@inficon.com

• Re: External communication with SCXML (Monday, 11 February)

Sean Powers

• Cloud-Based Voice Commands (Thursday, 14 February)

spam.spam.spam.spam@free.fr

• wrong tag and missing attribute in the SCXML document example (Thursday, 28 March)
• use your SCXML examples in my work (Thursday, 14 February)
• again a bad initial target in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• bad initial target in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• bad state name in the SCXML document example (Wednesday, 13 February)
• undeclared namespace in the SCXML document example (Tuesday, 12 February)
• dupplicated word in the SCXML document (Monday, 11 February)

Stefan Radomski

• DOM in _event.data and KVPs (Saturday, 30 March)
• Re: Test152: Foreach with string literal as item? (Friday, 29 March)
• Test152: Foreach with string literal as item? (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• Re: SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Friday, 29 March)
• SCXML test 147: transition contains empty condition (Thursday, 28 March)
• Re: some tests for SCXML (Wednesday, 27 March)
• Re: more on preemption (Friday, 8 March)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Friday, 15 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Thursday, 14 February)
• Re: revised enterStates (Wednesday, 13 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Tuesday, 12 February)
• Re: External communication with SCXML (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Monday, 11 February)
• External communication with SCXML (Monday, 11 February)
• Re: Reentering child of parallel state leaves all childs? (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Sunday, 10 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Saturday, 9 February)
• Reentering child of parallel state leaves all childs? (Saturday, 9 February)
• Bug with deep and shallow history in pseudo-code (Saturday, 9 February)
• Re: ISSUE-830: Bug in transition with target of history state [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 8 February)
• Illegal configuration with history in pseudocode (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Friday, 8 February)
• Re: ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• Re: Soliciting Comments from SCXML Users (Tuesday, 22 January)

Voice Browser Working Group Issue Tracker

• ISSUE-831: Should default <send> target be specific to the I/O Processor? [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 12 February)
• ISSUE-830: Bug in transition with target of history state [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 8 February)
• ISSUE-829: exiting parallel due to external transition [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 1 February)
• ISSUE-828: Unique IDs for Transitions [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 1 February)
• ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)
• ISSUE-826: comments from Gavin Kistner [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Friday, 25 January)
• ISSUE-825: comments from Darmstadt [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 22 January)
• ISSUE-822: Issues with Event I/O Processors [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Wednesday, 16 January)

Zhou, Guojun

• RE: ISSUE-827: bug in detecting final states [SCXML-LC-Comments] (Tuesday, 29 January)

Last message date: Sunday, 31 March 2013 23:20:35 UTC