Re: SSML LC Comments

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your comments.  Our responses are embedded below,  
preceded by "DB>>".
If you have any concerns with our responses, please let us know.  If  
we do not hear from you within two weeks of today we will assume that  
you have accepted our resolutions.

Dan Burnett
SSML 1.1 Co-Editor
Voice Browser Working Group

On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:58 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, VBWG-
> I was asked for my review from the perspective of compound  
> documents for section 2.2.3 (Using SSML with other Namespaces),
> My high level comment is that, though this section is in the  
> conformance section and does use some normative language ("The  
> synthesis namespace MAY be used with other XML namespaces as per  
> the appropriate Namespaces in XML Recommendation"), it does not  
> introduce any specific mechanism beyond those already provided in  
> the Namespaces in XML specification. Is this intended to be tested?

DB>> Resolution:  Accepted (Question only)
DB>> Explanation:  We do not intend for SSML implementers to test  
this, although embedders of SSML
DB>> may wish to.  As an example, VoiceXML 3 is likely to permit SSML  
(in the SSML namespace) as
DB>> content for certain of its elements.  We would expect VoiceXML 3  
implementation reports to test
DB>> this.

> The example given looked fine from a technical standpoint (that is,  
> the markup looks correct).  It would be helpful to explain the  
> example more, to explain what the use case it is trying to solve  
> is.  In general, it would be nice to see a few more use cases that  
> explain why an author would want to mix other namespaced content  
> in, and examples how to do it... this would include examples where  
> SSML is the host language, and where it is the supplementary language.
> I don't think these comments are critical for the specification,  
> but more consideration of the mixed-namespace scenario may lead to  
> wider use of SSML on Web resources targeted for desktop browsers as  
> well as voice browsers.  This might be explored more in a  
> supplementary document, such as a tutorial.

DB>> Resolution:  Accepted with modifications
DB>> Explanation:  We, the active members of the working group, are  
and have been primarily
DB>> interested in using SSML with VoiceXML and/or SMIL, both of  
which have examples in the
DB>> specification document.  We are not experts in or particularly  
aware of other uses of the
DB>> language, but we would be happy to include examples from you or  
others that demonstrate new
DB>> uses.  The idea of a supplementary document is interesting to  
us; we would be happy to assist
DB>> anyone who would like to develop such a tutorial.

> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 01:21:38 UTC