- From: Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka <dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:01:24 +0200
- To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Cc: www-multimodal@w3.org
Hey Debbie, Yes, this solution is acceptable. Dirk Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> schrieb: >Hi Dirk, >We haven't received any other comments that would require republishing the IR Plan. We plan to republish in a few days with Assertion 24 removed. >Please let us know if this resolution is acceptable. >Best regards, >Debbie Dahl > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dr. Dirk Schnelle-Walka [mailto:dirk.schnelle@jvoicexml.org] >> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:03 AM >> To: Deborah Dahl >> Cc: www-multimodal@w3.org >> Subject: Re: [arch] mc specific test assertions for cancel >> >> Hey Debbie, >> >> are there further changes of this plan due to experiences that others >> mad? When will it be published? >> >> Dirk >> >> > Hi Dirk, >> > We've discussed your question in the Working Group, and we agree with >> your >> > suggestion that test assertions 178 (a modality component MUST return a >> > CancelResponse event in response to a CancelRequest) and assertion 24 >> > (CancelResponse MUST be sent by the modality component as a response >> to the >> > CancelRequest) are basically duplicates. We plan to remove assertion 24 >> and >> > republish the Implementation Report Plan. >> > Since we are tracking all comment threads at this point, please let us know >> > by June 15 if this resolution is acceptable, otherwise we will assume that >> > you agree with our decision (but it is very helpful to have an explicit >> > response). >> > Best regards, >> > Debbie Dahl, MMI WG Chair >> > >> > >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 17:00:09 UTC