RE: More VXML comments and clarification suggestions

Hi Guillaume,

thanks for more comments! I too hope that we can still take some of them
into account. I will let you know later our official response to your

thanks again


-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Berche []
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:17
Subject: More VXML comments and clarification suggestions


Following are additional suggestions for clarifications of the VXML 2.0
Working Draft from 24 April 2002. Again, I understand the deadline for
comments on VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Working Draft was the 24th May 2002
that my comments may not be taken into account for the 2.0 release. The
comments below are mainly wording suggestions or typos. I hope they can

- Incorrect time designation pattern in schema:
The time designation pattern "Duration.datatype" is defined as
"\+?[0-9]+(m?s)?" in the schema. However, this does not include real
such as "1.5s" as specified by CSS2 section "4.3.1 Integers and real

Suggested modification to the definition of "Duration.datatype" in the
 <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
  <xsd:pattern value="\+?[0-9]+(\.[0-9]+)?(m?s)?" />

- Precise the Exit expr attribute is an **ECMAScript** expression which
resolve into a defined variable
Suggested text modification to section "5.3.9 EXIT":
"expr: An **ECMAScript** expression that is evaluated as the return
(e.g. "0", "'oops!'", or "field1")."

- Precise which event is thrown if the nextitem or expreitem attribute
of a
Goto element refers to a non-existing **form item**.

Suggested text modification to section "5.3.7 GOTO":
"If the **form item**, dialog, or document to transition to is not valid
(i.e. the **form item**, dialog or document does not exist), an
error.badfetch must be thrown. "

I also have a question concerning the "Mapping Semantic Interpretation
Results to VoiceXML forms" that I could not answer. When an input item
contains a grammar with a dialog scope, would this grammar be considered
a form-level grammar (and therefore be semantically equivalent to a
element defined in the form) or would the interpretation of its results
different that a form-level grammar?
In particular, if this grammar matches, would the other input items be
inspected for match of their slot names on this match?
If such a grammar is handled as a form-level grammar, I don't quite
understand the benefit for developers to have it as a child of an input
rather than as a child of the form. Can somebody please point me to the
appropriate section in the specifications which detail this or provide
with details?

Any comment on this is much welcomed.


Guillaume Berche
Eloquant, ZA Le malvaisin
38240 Le Versoud, France
+33 04 76 77 46 92

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 05:50:14 UTC