W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-speech-api@w3.org > June 2012

Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:43:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7R=C+Z-BN1nb3fCpjibm7pdRADqhgYV-Tbkn7BtF66LZVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
>
> Every argument that I've heard for discarding this feature boils down to
> implementation.


Milan, that is a gross misunderstanding of the points I've been making in
this thread. I mentioned duplicity of the same data across multiple
attributes, ease of API use between XML and JS from a web developer's
standpoint, asked for specific use cases and why they can't be addressed
with the JS API and so on. It was you in fact who mentioned "a simple
wrapper that can be implemented with a few lines of code." and talked about
implementation rather than design principles of the API.


> Given that implementation is trivial, this sounds like an abuse of the
> community structure we are based on.  If we do not have a resolution to add
> this feature by this weekend, I will escalate to the W3C staff.
>

Again, this isn't about implementation but we were having a proper debate
about the API design in this forum and validating each others' concerns.
Please don't issue such threats in future, this is what undermines the
community spirit.
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 23:44:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 June 2012 23:44:25 GMT