W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: [SSML11] i18n comment 1: Language priority list?

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:11:09 -0400
Message-Id: <4699565B-149C-4CCE-BD4B-643C1C91CF77@voxeo.com>
Cc: <jim@larson-tech.com>, <ashimura@w3.org>, <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>

s/inline failure/onlangfailure/

On May 7, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Richard Ishida wrote:

> My notes from the FTF meeting in Beijing:
>
> It is intentional that all items must match.  Note that xml:lang is  
> not
> related to voice.
> Failure is handled by voice and inline failure sections.
> More text will be added to clarify, an example, and links to other  
> sections.
>
> RI
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/blog/
> http://rishida.net/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of ishida@w3.org
>> Sent: 07 April 2008 16:21
>> To: dburnett@voxeo.com; jim@larson-tech.com; ashimura@w3.org;
>> scott.mcglashan@hp.com; public-i18n-core@w3.org
>> Subject: [SSML11] i18n comment 1: Language priority list?
>>
>>
>> Comment from the i18n review of:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-speech-synthesis11-20080317//
>>
>> Comment 1
>> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0804-ssml11/Overview.html
>> Editorial/substantive: E/S
>> Tracked by: RI
>>
>> Location in reviewed document:
>> 3.2.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-speech-synthesis11-20080317/ 
>> #S3.2.1]
>>
>> Comment:
>> No mention is made of the concept of a 'language priority list'  
>> per RFC
> 4647. We
>> suspect that this is an oversight, since we expect that a  
>> processor needs
> to choose
>> one item from the list that best fits, and will need some help in  
>> making
> that
>> choice.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the text says "A voice satisfies the languages  
>> feature if,
> for each
>> language/accent pair in the list...". We suspect that that should  
>> read
> 'if, for one or
>> more language/accent pairs in the list...' The word 'each' implies  
>> that
> all items in
>> the list must match.
>>
>>
>> If we are mistaken here, please make it clearer in the spec why this
> approach is
>> used.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 19:11:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:55 GMT