FW: Comments for Last Call Working Drafts

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Burnett 
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:02 PM
To: 'lesch@w3.org'
Cc: 'w3c-voice@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Comments for Last Call Working Drafts

Dear Susan,

Once again, thank you for your review of the SSML specification.
it's been two years since you sent this email, we thought it appropriate
to send an official response as if you had sent the comment today.

If you believe we have not adequately addressed your issues with our
responses, please let us know as soon as possible.  If we do not hear
from you within 14 days, we will take this as tacit acceptance.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Dan Burnett
Synthesis Team Leader, VBWG

[VBWG responses are embedded, preceded by '>>>']

-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Susan Lesch
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 11:50 PM
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: Comments for Last Call Working Drafts

Just a few comments about the speech grammar and synthesis Last Call
Working Drafts [1,2].

The markup, embedded CSS, and overall presentation is well done and
easy to follow. One suggestion is to mark up elements and attributes
as XHTML code, for example, <code>item</code>, rather than quote them
as "item". No added color would be necessary.

>>> Proposed disposition:  Accepted
>>> We will mark up SSML elements and attributes along
>>> the lines of the approach used in the XHTML2 Working Drafts
>>> (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2).

Regarding the embedded style, I have been told that hex values are
better supported in old browsers than RGB. In Netscape 4.x Mac,
"list-style: none;" renders as a question mark for each bullet and
should be omitted. In IE 3.x Mac, "background" color is supported;
("background-color" is not). Also, when declaring a background color, a
text color is needed; #000 would be fine.

>>> Proposed disposition:  Accepted with changes
>>> Your point about cross-browser styling is a good one.
>>> From the next draft of the specification onwards we
>>> will be following Dave Raggett's style guide (see
>>> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/Style) as much as possible.

Finally, both Working Drafts have extensive "future study" sections.
When and if the drafts move to higher maturity levels, I think these
sections should be cut and moved to another location, possibly linked
from the Voice Browser Activity home page. Somehow speculating would
seem out of place in a Recommendation. What do you think?

>>> Proposed disposition:  Accepted
>>> This section has already been significantly reduced
>>> in the last draft (see
>>> We agree that it should be removed entirely as the
>>> document moves closer to Recommendation.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-speech-grammar-20010103/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-speech-synthesis-20010103/

Susan Lesch - mailto:lesch@w3.org  tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) - http://www.w3.org/

Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 20:12:12 UTC