W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2010

CCXML Implementation Report - current status and deadline.

From: Petr Kuba <kuba@optimsys.cz>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:47:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFBF103.50008@optimsys.cz>
To: RJ Auburn <rj@voxeo.com>
CC: www-voice <www-voice@w3.org>, W3C Voice Browser Working Group <w3c-voice-wg@w3.org>

Could you please inform us about current situation of the Implementation 
Report? Deadline for submission of a CCXML Implementation Report is this 
Friday. Is it still valid?

For sure we want to send our implementation report but it is a little 
bit hard task because we haven't received answers for plenty of our 
comments. It means that we will have to prepare the implementation 
report which will be influenced by modifications that are not confirmed. 
Does it make sense or could you suggest some better solution?

In the email below you expected to have answers to our questions within 
a week. Obviously something had to break your plan. Could you please 
give us some updated estimates?

Generally speaking, it would be very helpful for us to get up-to-date 
information whenever your plans get changed.

Thanks for your response,

Petr Kuba

   Petr Kuba, Project Manager
   OptimSys, s.r.o
   Tel: +420 541 143 065
   Fax: +420 541 143 066

On 8.4.2010 17:36, RJ Auburn wrote:
> Petr:
> Thanks. We have tracked this as ISSUE-670. We are discussing this in the next few days internally and should have an answer shortly (within a week at the most).
> 	RJ
> ---
> RJ Auburn
> CTO, Voxeo Corporation
> tel:+1-407-418-1800
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Petr Kuba wrote:
>> Hello,
>> We believe that the script 6_1.txml for testing Assers 714 and 715
>> (required properties sessionid and reason of the ccxml.kill event) is
>> not correct because it breaks the following part of the specification:
>> CCXML specification, Section 9.1:
>> "...however, it is legal for external sources and for events created
>> using<send>   to generate standard events. For instance, it is useful to be able to generate a ccxml.kill event to attempt graceful termination of a session from an external context, or from another CCXML session. Platforms SHOULD reject any standard events that do not contain all of the mandatory properties defined in this specification, and SHOULD notify the sender of the rejection (for instance with an error.send event)."
>> We believe that the following statement at line 573, 6_1.txml breaks the specification because it does not contain required properties sessionid and reason:
>> <send target="childSessionId" targettype="'ccxml'" name="'ccxml.kill'"
>> sendid="mySendId"/>
>> Therefore the event SHOULD be rejected and the asserts 714 and 715
>> cannot pass.
>> Could you please look into this?
>> Best Regards,
>> Petr Kuba
>> --
>>    Petr Kuba, Project Manager
>>    OptimSys, s.r.o
>>    kuba@optimsys.cz
>>    Tel: +420 541 143 065
>>    Fax: +420 541 143 066
>>    http://www.optimsys.cz
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 15:48:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:03:56 UTC