- From: Wyss, Felix <FelixW@inin.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:45:22 -0500
- To: "Sturtevant Dean" <Dean.Sturtevant@comverse.com>, <www-voice@w3.org>
> There's no need for new syntax here. It seems that the following should work
> (as is implemented on our platform):
> $rule =
> $<http://example.com/foo.gram#foo>
> $<http://example.com/bar.gram#bar>
> {$.result = $foo + $bar};
Hi Dean,
There are two problems with that:
1) There is a semantic difference, as $<http://example.com/foo.gram> references whatever the root rule of the referenced grammar happens to be. $<http://example.com/foo.gram#foo> explicitly references the (public) rule "foo". It may not be desirable having to know the name of the referenced (root) rule as it increases the implicit dependency with the external grammar.
2) This will not work for URI schemes that don't have the notion of fragments. For example, VoiceXML "builtin" grammars.
I personally think having to use $$ and $$$ and copy them into local variables as necessary is sufficient and keeps things simple. I just wanted to offer an alternate solution...
--Felix
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:45:29 UTC