RE: VBWG official response to last call issue

Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 08:08 -0800, MattO a écrit :
> "- 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: Deferred
> 
> XML Schema 1.1 is expected to address this problem [1] and would thus allow
> us to write a 1.1 schema for VoiceXML 2.1 based on XML 1.1. 
> XMLSchema 1.1 is not yet aligned with XML 1.1 yet (e.g. see [2]); thus, the
> VBWG has chosen to leave VoiceXML 2.1 dependent on XML 1.0 only.
> The VBWG will address this issue in a future version of VoiceXML.

I'm satisfied with this response, thanks.

Dom

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema11-2-20050224/reqs.html#xml1.1
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema11-2-20050224/datatypes.html#string
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 2:36 AM
> To: MattO
> Cc: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: Re: VBWG official response to last call issue
> 
> 
> 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