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 exactly what you get if you develop for FS in Javascript, Lua or any of 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.
--Dave
If you don't like vxml then here is a post on voicePHP
http://www.speechtechblog.com/2009/04/22/voicexml-to-go-down-in-the-third-sa...
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@aol.com wrote:
Great Idea. Try setting up the exact same dialogue with say Voxeo's VoiceXML system and then with Javascript/Lua and pocketsphinx. It's an order of 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@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org