dave at 3c.co.uk
Thu Apr 23 13:11:18 PDT 2009
Just sticking 'voice' in front of something doesn't automatically make
it a good tool for developing voice applications - there's more
marketing here than anything else. And it's not like adding extensions
to an existing language to provide IVR control is anything new: it's
its other supported languages.
>From my point of view, as a programmer, VoiceXML is the wrong idiom for
development of IVR/telephony services; a procedural language works just
fine. I suspect that I'm not alone, and I further suspect that that's
why there's no real push to get VoiceXML supported.
> If you don't like vxml then here is a post on voicePHP
> It's from a vendor but there might be some good ideas to get from what they
> are doing.
> FreeSWITCH needs demand to get vxml and it's not there yet. For now, it
> looks like the FS community is waiting for demand instead of trying to
> create it.
> David Knell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 14:35 -0400, mszlazak at aol.com wrote:
> >> Great Idea.
> >> Try setting up the exact same dialogue with say Voxeo's VoiceXML
> >> magnitude faster with VoiceXML.
> > Out of interest, is that using some RAD tool or coding directly in
> > VoiceXML? I ask because VoiceXML strikes me as being a bastard
> > abomination of the highest order, whose sole saving grace is that
> > it's a standardised bastard abomination.
> > Or is Pocketsphinx the problem?
> > Cheers --
> > Dave
> > _______________________________________________
> > Freeswitch-users mailing list
> > Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> > http://www.freeswitch.org
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users