I18N response, VoiceXML 2.1 comment (was RE: VBWG official response to last call issue)

Dear Voice Browser WG,

Thank you for your response. 

This is the official response of the I18N Core WG. We are not satisfied with your response for the reasons shown below. Because you would like urgently to move your document forward, a teleconference between our two groups is probably called for. It turns out that both our groups currently hold telecons at the same time. Would you like to join our call this coming Tuesday to discuss this issue? Or do you want to arrange a separate meeting?

Please note that the I18N Core WG is now a public working group?(similar to TAG). A discussion at our teleconference can be separately documented as member-only if necessary (i.e. not minuted in our public minutes). 

Your response said, in part:

> After further discussions, the working group proposes:
> 
> - not to add an erratum to VoiceXML2.0: RFC3986 was published after
>   VoiceXML2.0. And even though 3986 supercedes 2396, referencing
>   RFC2396 was not an error and so shouldn't be corrected in an erratum.
>   Similarly for RFC3987.

We are not satisfied with this. Referencing RFC 2396 was not an error at that time, but errors are not the only things that are handled by an erratum. Changes in RFC references due to standards activity at the IETF is commonly done via errata. RFC 3986 should be referenced. More importantly, we feel very strongly that you should reference RFC 3987 because IRIs are a critical component to interoperability.

> 
> - to change the VoiceXML2.1 schema to reference RFC3986 instead of the
>   now obsolete RFC2396.

We agree, although we note that you should really reference IRI too.
> 
> - not to add a reference to RFC 3987 to VoiceXML2.1. As explained in
>   the specification, "VoiceXML 2.1 specifies a set of features
>   commonly implemented by Voice Extensible Markup Language platforms."
>   Adding IRIs is a new feature, not currently implemented by VoiceXML
>   implementations.  Moreover, RFC3987 was finalised too recently in
>   the development of VoiceXML2.1: January 2005, 6 months after the
>   publication of this Last Call.

IRI is not a new feature. The type xsd:anyURI is, in fact, compliant with IRI. Having your documentation point to the wrong reference (mere URIs) would be an incorrect interpretation of that datatype. Assuming that VoiceXML 2.1 implementations actually follow the standard, the human readable text in your simple type definition is misleading and promotes the adoption of a non-internationalized solution. Please reconsider this.

> 
> - to consider support for RFC2397 in future versions of VoiceXML.


You mean RFC 3987, I believe. Certainly we would strongly advise this. In particular, CharMod-ResID (http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod-resid/) requires it.

We look forward to resolving this issue with you. Please advise about timing.

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:member-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:15 AM
> To: member-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: FW: VBWG official response to last call issue
> 
> 
> Addison,
> 
> The voice folks want to move their spec on and need an answer to this. Can
> we please schedule a discussion for tomorrow's telecon.
> 
> Thanks,
> RI
> 
> PS: What time is the telecon again??
> 
> 
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> W3C
> 
> contact info:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> 
> W3C Internationalization:
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> 
> Publication blog:
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-i18n-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-i18n-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Max Froumentin
> Sent: 25 March 2005 11:36
> To: Martin Duerst
> Cc: MattO; www-voice@w3.org; w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Re: VBWG official response to last call issue
> 
> 
> Martin, all,
> 
> Please find below the VBWG's responses to your last call comment on
> URIs/IRIs in VoiceXML2.1
> 
> >>VBWG Response: Deferred
> >>
> >>VoiceXML 2.1 (VXML21) is designed to be completely backwards
> >>compatible with VoiceXML 2.0 (VXML2). The VXML21 schema is derived
> >>directly from the VXML2 schema, and the definition of "URI.datatype"
> >>is identical. The VBWG suggests that it would be more appropriate to
> >>submit this particular CR to the VBWG as a proposed errata for VXML2.
> >>If the CR were adopted for VXML2, the change would be picked up by
> VXML21
> to maintain compatibility.
> >
> > So we herewith request the following changes to VXML2, which we
> > understand will be carried over to VXML21:
> >
> > - Change the XML Schema definition of URI.datatype from:
> >
> >   <xsd:simpleType name='URI.datatype'>
> >        <xsd:annotation>
> >            <xsd:documentation>URI (RFC2396)</xsd:documentation>
> >        </xsd:annotation>
> >        <xsd:restriction base='xsd:anyURI'/>
> >   </xsd:simpleType>
> >
> >   to:
> >
> >   <xsd:simpleType name='URI.datatype'>
> >        <xsd:annotation>
> >            <xsd:documentation>IRI (RFC3987)</xsd:documentation>
> >        </xsd:annotation>
> >        <xsd:restriction base='xsd:anyURI'/>
> >   </xsd:simpleType>
> >
> > - Add a reference to RFC 3987
> >
> > - Update the reference to RFC 2396 to RFC 3986
> >
> > - Say clearly in the spec that wherever the term URI is used,
> >   this isn't restricted to ASCII only, actually allows IRIs.
> >
> > We very much hope that this can be done in time for the next
> > publication of VXML21.
> 
> After further discussions, the working group proposes:
> 
> - not to add an erratum to VoiceXML2.0: RFC3986 was published after
>   VoiceXML2.0. And even though 3986 supercedes 2396, referencing
>   RFC2396 was not an error and so shouldn't be corrected in an erratum.
>   Similarly for RFC3987.
> 
> - to change the VoiceXML2.1 schema to reference RFC3986 instead of the
>   now obsolete RFC2396.
> 
> - not to add a reference to RFC 3987 to VoiceXML2.1. As explained in
>   the specification, "VoiceXML 2.1 specifies a set of features
>   commonly implemented by Voice Extensible Markup Language platforms."
>   Adding IRIs is a new feature, not currently implemented by VoiceXML
>   implementations.  Moreover, RFC3987 was finalised too recently in
>   the development of VoiceXML2.1: January 2005, 6 months after the
>   publication of this Last Call.
> 
> - to consider support for RFC2397 in future versions of VoiceXML.
> 
> We hope you are satisfied with these proposals and their rationales.
> Please let us know.
> 
> Max.
> 
>

Received on Friday, 22 April 2005 18:18:20 UTC