[dialog] Wilson - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Review Issues

The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) has almost
finished resolving the issues raised during the last call
review of the 24 April 2002 VoiceXML 2.0 [1]. Our apologies that 
it has taken so long to respond.

This is the VBWG's formal response to the issues you raised,
which have been logged in the Working Group's issues list [4].
The VBWG's resolutions have been incorporated into the 13 September
2002 draft of the VoiceXML 2.0 [5]. 

Please indicate before 3 October 2002 whether you are satisfied with the
VBWG's resolutions, whether you think there has been a
misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection.
If you do not think you can respond before 3 October, please let me
know.  The Director will appreciate a response whether you agree
with the resolutions or not.

Below you will find:

 1) More information follows about the process we are following.
 2) A summary of the VBWG's responses to each of your issues.

Thank you,

Scott

-----------------------------------------------
1) Process requirement to address last call issues
-----------------------------------------------

Per section 5.2.3 [2] of the 19th July 2001 Process Document, in
order for the VoiceXML 2.0 to advance to the next state (Candidate
Recommendation), the Working Group must "formally address all
issues raised during the Last Call review period (possibly
modifying the technical report)." Section 4.1.2 of the Process
Document [3] sets expectations about what constitutes a formal
response:

  "In the context of this document, a Working Group has formally
  addressed an issue when the Chair can show (archived) evidence
  of having sent a response to the party who raised the
  issue. This response should include the Working Group's
  resolution and should ask the party who raised the issue to
  reply with an indication of whether the resolution reverses the
  initial objection."

If you feel that the response is based on a misunderstanding of
the original issue, you are encouraged to restate and clarify the
issue until there is agreement about the issue, so that the
Working Group may prepare its substantive response.

If the response shows understanding of the original issue but
does not satisfy the reviewer, you may register a formal
objection with the Working Group that will be carried forward
with the relevant deliverables. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020424/
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#RecsCR
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#WGVotes
[4] http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/voiceXML-change-requests.htm
(members only)
[5] http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020913.htm
(members only)
(http://www.w3.org/Voice/Group/2002/WD-voicexml20-20020913.zip) (members
only)


-----------------------------------------------
2) Issues you raised and responses
-----------------------------------------------

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2002AprJun/0066.html
you raised 
the following issues which were registered as dialog change request
R471. 
Our response is given inline after each issue.
 
 
1. The index between Appendix N and Appendix P appears to be Appendix
zero, not
   Appendix O.

VBWG: Accepted.

Corrected in [5].

2. In section 6.5, "Time Designations", the example "+1.5s" still
contradicts
   the text, which describes the format as "an unsigned number followed
by an
   optional time unit identifier".

VBWG Response: Accepted.

Clarified in section 6.3 of [5] that a time designator is a non-negative
number which 
must be followed by ms or s (i.e. it is fully aligned with Time in
CSS2).

3. Section 2.1.2.1 "Input Items" says that "implementations must handle
the
   <object> element by throwing error.unsupported.object.objectname if
the
   particular platform-specific object is not supported". Section 2.3.5
   "OBJECT" says that "implementations must handle the <object> element
by
   throwing error.unsupported.object if the particular platform-specific
object
   is not supported" (i.e. it does not include the object name in the
event
   name).  Section 5.2.6 "Event Types" does not list any
   error.unsupported.object events, but does include
error.unsupported.format,
   which is raised if "The requested resource has ... e.g. an
unsupported ...
   object type". Could this be clarified?

VBWG Response: Accepted.

Changed and clarified in sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.3.5 of [5] that if an
implementation 
does not support a specific object, it throws
error.unsupported.objectname. In section 5.2.6 of [5] that the event
error.unsupported.format is not thrown for unsupported 
object types. The section 5.2.6 is not intended as an exhaustive list of
event 
types (no change).


4. Events such as error.unsupported.uri, error.unsupported.language,
    error.unsupported.format are ambiguous, since they could also be
    occurrences of error.unsupported.<element> if incorrect elements
have
    been used in the VoiceXML document.

VBWG Response: Accepted

We will clarify 5.2.6 by adding that <element> in
error.unsupported.<element> refers to "elements defined in this
specification." (not in [5]).


5. Section 6.1.2.1 says that "VoiceXML allows the author to control the
caching
   policy for each use of each resource." Is this true of the
application root
   document?

VBWG Response: Accepted

We will clarify in 6.1.2.1 that there is no markup mechanism to specify
the caching policy on a root document. (not in [5]).


6. Regarding the "builtin" URI scheme,
   http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#unreg says that "Unregistered
schemes
   should not be deployed widely and should not be used except
experimentally."
   Is there any intention to register the "builtin" scheme?

VBWG Response: Accepted.

We are still trying to determine if there is an existing URI scheme
which we can reuse 
for VoiceXML builtin. If we are unable to find one, then we will
register the builtin scheme.

7. There is a typo "attibute" in the schema in Appendix O (in the
   xsd:annotation for the Accept.attrib attributeGroup).

VBWG Response: Accepted.

corrected in [5].

8. The "minimal Conforming VoiceXML document" in appendix F1 is not
minimal. As
   the text itself states, the XML declaration, and the xmlns:xsi and
   xsi:schemeLocation are not rqeuired for conformance.

VBWG Response: Accepted.

In appendix F, changed description of example so that it is not
described as minimal.


9. Section 5.1.3 says, when referring to XML-escaping characters such as

<, >, and & :

"For clarity, examples in this document do not use XML escapes."

I strongly disagree with this decision. I think that having examples in
the 
spec which do not work is more likely to lead to confusion than anything

else. If there is a lack of clarity in VoiceXML in places, then I
believe 
the spec should not try to hide the fact.

VBWG Response: Accepted.

Removed this text and updated all examples to escaped XML characters in
[5].

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 10:15:29 UTC