[admin]: [dialog] Hamerich - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0 Last Call Review Issues

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamerich Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Hamerich@temic-sds.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 13:38
To: Scott McGlashan
Subject: RE: [dialog] Hamerich - VBWG official response to VoiceXML 2.0
Last Call Review Issues


Scott,

thanks for your inquiry.
Well the process issues are one problem. But I know they are not your
fault. 

The main focus was that we expected the VBWG to do more real technical
changes on the new VoiceXML spec. But it now seems that the group is
more interested to specify the existing documents more precisly, than to
insert new code elements, which could allow a better implementation of
dialog scripts etc. That was the main reason for the uttered
dissatisfaction.

So under this circumstances we surely accept the resolutions from the
VBWG for the moment. But we are looking forward for a new VoiceXML
review process to finally have the chance to add new flexibility and
extensions to VoiceXML. Because we think VoiceXML needs more extensions
to be better than other dialogue description languages which are
currenty on the market.

Thank you so far.

With kind regards

Stefan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott McGlashan [mailto:scott.mcglashan@pipebeach.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: Hamerich Stefan
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [dialog] Hamerich - VBWG official response to
> VoiceXML 2.0
> Last Call Review Issues
> 
> 
> Stefan,
> 
> thank you for your response.
> 
> On the first point, the new draft specifications are member-only 
> documents --- you are able to see these documents if you become a W3C 
> member. Otherwise, you need to wait for the public release. I can only

> do what the W3C process allows me to do!
> 
> More generally you say that you are not satisfied with the VBWG's 
> resolution. We now need to take this matter further. Can you specify 
> exactly what you are dissatisfied with? Is it purely the process 
> issues you raised, or do you have some specific technical objections 
> to the solutions we proposed? Is there anything we can do to change 
> your mind so that you accept VBWG's resolution?
> 
> thanks in advance
> 
> Scott
> 
> _______________
> 
> Scott McGlashan
>  
> PIPEBEACH
> Box 24035/Linnégatan 89 B, 7tr
> SE-104 50 Stockholm, Sweden
> fax:       +46 8 54590993
> office:    +46 8 54590990
> 
> 
> 
> www.pipebeach.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hamerich Stefan [mailto:Stefan.Hamerich@temic-sds.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 16:46
> To: Scott McGlashan
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [dialog] Hamerich - VBWG official response to
> VoiceXML 2.0
> Last Call Review Issues
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> thank you for your answer.
> 
> We are in fact not very satisfied with VBWG's resolution. First we 
> want to add the point, that we regret it very much not to be able to 
> view the new draft specifications. Second we are happy that the VBWG 
> promised to think about a smaller embedded version of VoiceXML. In 
> contrast, the other points force us to
> continue with workarounds. Here we would prefer a clear solution with
> VoiceXML elements.
> 
> But we hope - as mentioned in your reply - that the coming version of 
> VoiceXML will be more flexible and will offer more possilibities.
> 
> Thanks so far,
> 
> Stefan
> 
> -----------------------------
> Stefan W. Hamerich
> TEMIC Speech Dialog Systems
> Research Department
> Soeflinger Str. 100
> 89077 Ulm
> Germany
> 
> Tel:      +49/731/3994-123
> Fax:      +49/731/3994-250
> Mail:     stefan.hamerich@temic-sds.com
> Internet: http://www.temic-sds.com
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:19:08 UTC