- From: Scott McGlashan <scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 18:31:00 +0100
- To: "James Salsman" <j.salsman@bovik.org>
- Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>
James, I am sorry that you are disappointed by W3C and that you do not want to become a member. At this stage I cannot provide you with further internal technical information while operating within current W3C policies (However, the VBWG will publish a roadmap for VoiceXML in the coming months to give non-members a better insight into how the language will evolve. This may address your concerns). If you have specific concerns on W3C operating policies, please contact W3C staff personnel directly (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Contact). Best Wishes Scott -----Original Message----- From: James Salsman [mailto:j.salsman@bovik.org] Sent: 05 February 2002 23:50 To: Scott McGlashan Cc: www-voice@w3.org Subject: Re: VoiceXML2.0: Missing "destexpr" attribute in specification of <record> element Scott, Thank you for your invitation: > Due to W3C member confidentially, I cannot go into the details of > specific technical decisions or even specific features which are being > considered for future versions (until that information is made public by > the group). If you are seriously interested in that level of technical > discussion I would encourage you to join the Voice Browser Group --- see > http://www.w3.org for membership details. This will give you access to > our internal discussions and decision-making process. > > Please let me know if this reply is unsatisfactory, or you want further > information. Yes, I find it unsatisfactory that the W3C still lacks the transparency required by most interpretations of the scientific method. Therefore I must respectfully decline your invitation. I would like further information about the following: Does general EVAL functionality exist in VoiceXML, and if not, what proposals have been made to establish it? Best wishes, James Salsman
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 12:29:04 UTC