[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Tim McCune <timm@channelpoint.com>
- To: "'xml-dev@xml.org'" <xml-dev@xml.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:34:33 -0600
It seems more likely to me that a rendering engine (on the server-side
initially) would take FO's as input and produce VoiceXML as output. So it
sounds like you might not get all the functionality from the FO approach as
you would from generating VoiceXML directly, but that seems like a trade-off
that you could decide on on a case-by-case basis.
Tim McCune
Software Architect, ChannelPoint
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid people." -- Mr. Garrison
-----Original Message-----
From: martind@netfolder.com [mailto:martind@netfolder.com]
...the other question is (and this is probably the most important one) Will
you find any XSLFO "aural" implementations or will you find any VoiceXML
implementations? To my knowledge there is more then 3 voiceXML browsers
currently in development or in test. How many "aural" XSLFo interpreters are
currently under devlopement or under tests? To my knowledge there is none?
Does Anybody knows one under development or under tests? if yes, please let
us know.
So, Let's be more precise and correct the original sentence. Even if XSLFo
theoritically specifies a rudimentary "aural" model, what is the probability
that you'll find any "aural" XSLFo browser? And the second question is: Is
there any "aural" implementation available? Is this better now? Is the
sentence enough precise?
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
