Re: [Fwd: April CCXML: bad assignments in test document 6_1] - [cc] ISSUE-679

Chris:

No problem. For formal tracking reasons this was tracked as ISSUE-679. I have closed this issue out however in our tracking system. 

	RJ
---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800

Come join us at our Voxeo Customer Summit, June 21st – June 23rd at the Hard Rock Hotel, register today for your All Access Pass:  
http://www.voxeo.com/summits/customer



On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:05 AM, Chris Davis wrote:

> Hello www-voice,
> 
> I am withdrawing my comments in the forwarded message. Another case where
> I had overlooked the ccxml scope!
> 
> -- 
> Chris Davis
> Interact Incorporated R&D
> 512-502-9969x117
> 
> 
> From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
> Date: April 16, 2010 12:02:53 AM GMT+08:00
> To: www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>
> Subject: April CCXML: bad assignments in test document 6_1
> 
> 
> Hello www-voice,
> 
> There is some illegal CCXML in 6_1.txml and
> child_1.ccxml from  http://www.w3.org/Voice/2009/ccxml-irp/ccxml10-irp-20100331.zip .
> 
> In 6_1.txml, the line
> <assign name="ccxml.var2" expr="222"/>
> should instead be
> <assign name="application.var2" expr="222"/>
> 
> and in child_1.ccxml
> the references to  ccxml.var2 should also be instead to application.var2.
> 
> That particular case seems to be verifying that application scope variables set
> in the parent are not reflected in the child. That's good, but the wrong
> variables are being checked.
> 
> The references to an object that doesn't exist (and even if present in parent would not exist in the child) cause javascript
> in both parent and child to combust.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- 
> Chris Davis
> Interact Incorporated R&D
> 512-502-9969x117
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 25 April 2010 21:46:25 UTC