- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:35:30 +0900
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>
Hi Dan, Thank you very much for your clarification! The group were also thinking we should ask the implementers for their opinion. I'll get back to the group and discuss this topic. Thanks, Kazuyuki Dan Connolly wrote: > > Kazuyuki Ashimura wrote: > [...] >> So the question is: >> Is it recommended that all the previous Recommendations be amended >> through errata so that they accept IRI, and implementations be changed >> accordingly? > > I have a hard time seeing such a change as a correction to > an erratum; it seems like a design change, to me. > > Was it the intent of the VoiceXML specs and such that IRIs be > used all along, much like HTML 4.0? If so, perhaps it is an error > in the spec text and a correction is in order. > > I recommend you start by making test cases to capture the issue. > Then see what the deployed software does in those cases. If > the implementors already read the specs as using internationlized > resource identifiers, then this is just an editorial clean-up. > > But if implementors read the specs as using URIs literally, > then this is a design change. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 08:35:42 UTC