- From: Chris Davis <davisc@iivip.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:25:02 -0500
- To: paolo.baggia@loquendo.com
- CC: www-voice@w3.org
Paolo, On June 7 I asked for but never received clarification as to why issue-677 was "reject". I never heard the decision makers comment on the performance impacts of line-by-line processing of ECMA (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/0062.html), nor was any defense offered about why a CCXML <transition> should have ECMA variable scoping that is completely different from normal ECMA processing within CCXML's <script> tag (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2010AprJun/att-0055/00-part). The current state of the recommendation and test cases is as follows: 1) <script> is fed to ECMA all at once and therefore uses normal ECMA scoping rules 2) <var> and <if> inside a <transition> are fed line-by-line resulting in new scoping behavior different from normal ECMA Why is this discrepancy ok? Is any explanation coming? Regards, Chris -- Chris Davis Interact Incorporated R&D 512-502-9969x117
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 14:25:45 UTC