Re: PLS 1.0 PR comment

Dear Felix,

Thank you for your comment.

Resolution:  Accepted

Explanation:  We agree with you and have decided to adjust our
schemas to allow attributes from non-PLS namespaces to occur on all
PLS 1.0 elements. Many thanks for helping us to update the PLS 1.0

If you accept our resolution to your request, can you please reply
indicating that you accept our resolutions?
If we do not hear from you within one week of today we will assume
that you have accepted our resolution.

Paolo Baggia
PLS 1.0 Editor
Voice Browser Working Group

From: Felix Sasaki <>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:48:23 +0900
Message-ID: <>

Hello Voice Browser Working Group,

this is a personal comment on the PLS 1.0 Proposed Recommendation draft
[1] which is based on a discussion within the ITS Interest Group [2].

There is no general attribute extensibility in the PLS 1.0 schema [3].
You need something like
<nsName ns=""/>
at each element declaration.

One reason for this proposal: Your conformance statement at [4] says:

"When a Conforming Pronunciation Lexicon Specification Processor
encounters elements or attributes that are not declared in this
specification and such elements or attributes occur where it is not
forbidden in this specification, the processor /MAY/ choose to:

    * ignore the non-standard elements and/or attributes
    * or, process the non-standard elements and/or attributes
    * or, reject the document containing those elements and/or attributes"

However, with the PLS schema at [3], it is not possible to create PLS
documents for processors which want to choose the first two options.

Another reason for this comment: We stumbled across this issue when we
discussed applicability of ITS 1.0 [5] in PLS 1.0. For vocabularies like
ITS 1.0 it is important that a "host vocabulary" like PLS 1.0 allows
embedding of ITS 1.0 markup easily. Without the attribute extensibility
this is rather difficult.

Note that I personally do not think that this is a normative change to
your specification, since it does not change the behavior of an PLS 1.0
processor, but rather the possibilities of non- PLS 1.0 implements who
want to do non- PLS 1.0 processing with PLS 1.0 documents.

Regards, Felix

[2] See
[3] |
[4] |

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 14:41:57 UTC