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 10:18:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7Rk4rfo2n9Z+j7smxDtyYO0koD=a+88+JkEiw8PMs266kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
Cc: olli@pettay.fi, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.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>
Yes that is correct, it should be
  readonly attribute Document emma;

Cheers
Satish


On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
> > In any case, looks like there is enough interest both from speech &
> browser
> > vendors to have this attribute always non-null. So I'm fine making it
> so. I
> > like the first proposal from Milan:
> > ----
> > Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)
> >
> >  readonly attribute DOMString emma;
> >
> > And the corresponding addition to 5.1.6:
> >  emma - A string representation of the XML-based <link>EMMA 1.0</link>
> > result. (link points to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/
> > ----
> >
> > This spec proposal shouldn't mandate specific fields any more than what
> EMMA
> > does already so that web apps can point to existing recognizers and get
> EMMA
> > data in the same format as they would get otherwise.
>
> Earlier in the thread, I thought we decided that it was better to make
> the emma attribute be of type Document rather than DOMString?
>
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 09:18:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 June 2012 09:18:57 GMT