- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:35:34 +0100
- To: MattO <matto@tellme.com>
- Cc: www-voice@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1110364534.11665.288.camel@stratustier>
Hello, Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 17:35 -0800, MattO a écrit : > The Voice Browser Working Group (VBWG) has almost finished resolving the > issues raised during the last call review of the 28 July 2004 working draft > of VoiceXML 2.1 [1]. Although your feedback was based on the First Working > Draft, the specification did not change radically, and we have evaluated > your requests against the LCWD [1]. Our apologies that it has taken so long > to respond. Thanks for taking the time to look at my comments; unless specifically indicated below, I'm satisfied with the VBWG's resolutions. > "- it's not clear which sections are normative and which are simply > informative" > > VBWG Response: Rejected > The sections of the document in the main body are normative unless otherwise > specified. [...] While this is a perfectly reasonable policy, the reader has no way to guess it; why not simply mentioning it somewhere in the introduction or in the conformance clause? > "- the notion of XML well-formed document is bound to XML 1.0 in the spec; > is there any discussion on accepting also XML 1.1?" > > VBWG Response: N/A > The VBWG is currently investigating the feasibility of resolving this issue. > We will get back to you with an official response within a week. I'm looking forward to it, thanks! > "- this may be planned for an more advanced draft, but having a table with > all the elements and attributes defined by VoiceXML 2.1 would be great (like > in HTML 4.01 [3])" > > VBWG Response: Accepted > A table of elements has been added to the introduction (1.1). Is there an editors draft I could look at to see the end results? Thanks, Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 10:35:42 UTC