xmlhack: VoiceXML 2.0 published - with patent issues

The W3C has published an initial draft of VoiceXML 2.0, along with a list of intellectual property issues.

VoiceXML 2.0 contains a number of changes from VoiceXML 1.0 including a new log element, the obsolescence of the dtmf, emp, div, pros, and sayas elements, as well as many changes to other elements and clarifications.

There are two layers of intellectual property issues with this draft. The first, a trademark issue, appears settled with a Memorandum of Understanding between the W3C and the VoiceXML Forum. The second is a collection of patent issues which have not been resolved pending the conclusion of the W3C's ongoing discussion of patent issues.

Related stories:

Re: VoiceXML 2.0 published - with patent issues (Tom Bradford - 22:35, 5 Nov 2001)

Do a search for the word 'web' in the VoiceXML spec. The only place you'll find it is the same sentence in triplicate which describes VoiceXML bringing the advantages of web-based development to interactive voice response systems.

So great, you have a format for creating voice recognition and DTMF menus using the 'advantages' of web-based development... So tell me again what VoiceXML has to do with the web?

My point is this: there are many client/server protocols implemented over HTTP that have absolutely nothing to do with the web other than the fact that their transport mechanisms use the same plumbing. I'm arguing that VoiceXML is no different.

TBL and W3C in general have completely blurred the distinction between what is 'internet' and what is 'web'... And for that matter, what is 'content' and what is 'web'. They must be stopped.

Re: VoiceXML 2.0 published - with patent issues (Tom Bradford - 19:57, 4 Nov 2001)

Ok... so other than the fact that URIs are used to link documents, and these documents are 'potentially' served around via web servers, what the hell does VoiceXML have to do with the web?

An even better question is where does the W3C charter encompass voice and telephony systems? Aren't there any bodies who are capable of specifying recommendations for this type of technology besides the W3C? It's not as though this technology is new and bleeding edge or anything.