koza57 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 24 14:27:45 PDT 2009
Although I'm not an active FS user, I've been following the discussions for
some time.I have some previous experience with VXML (and even with SALT, if
you still remember the misguided attempt by MS to highjack the standard.).
Here are some thoughts:
VXML was created mainly for speech applications, i.e. ASR and TTS. It comes
with quite a bit of overhead, which, in my opinion, is not justified for the
"classic" IVR development. Yes, the "big guys" use VXML, but many do so for
reasons that are more political than technical. If you are a big company,
you simply can't "ignore open-standards". A bit like the government.
Very few projects are developed "directly in VXML". Most use RAD tools that
give a much better programming environment, and actually "hide" VXML.
In reality, very few projects rally care about "vendor independence". In
fact, I've never heard of a significant voice app ported from one VXML
gateway to another...
In my opinion, the combination of speech-rec engines, VXML gateways and RAD
tools, because of all this extra cost and complexity, does not fit well with
the FS philosophy. So, unless there is a specific requirement for
speech-rec, the FS developers would be better off using the great tools
already available in FS.
From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: April-24-09 1:39 AM
To: freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] VoiceXML
Ya i think there is definately a disconnect between the peer circles that
people run in.
There is major adoption of voicexml by the "big boys", who dont care if the
tool to generate voicexml costs money.. and between the smaller shops that
are sensitive to costs like that.
A key driver for voicexml is portability of the IVR script.
And yes, i do realize that you can probably count on 1 hand how many real
voicexml apps will run on any vendors interpreter with no modification.
But the point is that you arent locked in as hard because 90% of your
scripts will work anywhere.
Think about it though...
Why do you have to pay money to join the club (forum)?
Why do you have to pay money to get certified?
In my mind, keep all the open source projects from offering a low cost
alternative and let them keep themselves occupied with religious arguments
about the best way to format IVR scripts.
You are dancing to their tune!
Im not suggesting FS should have VoiceXML. As I have pointed out before on
this list, the people that want VoiceXML dont want a half-baked
Probably the worst thing to do, is just kinda sorta get it working.. and
then gripe about the lack of adoption. Its all or nothing.
If people want a RAD IVR environment, with no care of portability... then
what FS offers is perfectly ok and why bother with VoiceXML.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:39 PM, mszlazak <mszlazak at aol.com> wrote:
Well if it's for marketing reasons then maybe that's why FS should do it.
After all, the idea is to get people to try something. Plus it is fast in
making up a dialogue so someone can quickly test if this will work for what
In a previous post, Steve said many don't use it but Voxeo Forums do have
posts daily on vxml. Maybe it's the first-timers getting their feet wet.
David Knell wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> > http://www.freeswitch.org <http://www.freeswitch.org/>
> Freeswitch-users mailing list
> Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://www.freeswitch.org <http://www.freeswitch.org/>
View this message in context:
Sent from the Freeswitch-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.12.3/2076 - Release Date: 04/23/09
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users