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
comments.

thanks again

Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Berche [mailto:guillaume.berche@eloquant.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:17
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: More VXML comments and clarification suggestions



Hello,

Following are additional suggestions for clarifications of the VXML 2.0
W3C
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
and
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
be
useful.

- 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
numbers
such as "1.5s" as specified by CSS2 section "4.3.1 Integers and real
numbers"

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


- Precise the Exit expr attribute is an **ECMAScript** expression which
may
resolve into a defined variable
Suggested text modification to section "5.3.9 EXIT":
"expr: An **ECMAScript** expression that is evaluated as the return
value
(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
as
a form-level grammar (and therefore be semantically equivalent to a
grammar
element defined in the form) or would the interpretation of its results
be
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
item
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
me
with details?

Any comment on this is much welcomed.

Thanks,

------------------------------------------
Guillaume Berche
Eloquant, ZA Le malvaisin
38240 Le Versoud, France
guillaume.berche@eloquant.com
+33 04 76 77 46 92
------------------------------------------

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