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: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:55:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB8jPhfZhObmapRVC4K-eBxjozTOZtRMUo1PsuEmDT8aZocFgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Cc: Satish S <satish@google.com>, olli@pettay.fi, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, public-speech-api@w3.org
Do we have agreement on this? If there are no objections, I'll update
the spec with the text Satish posted on the 8th (with DOMString
substituted with Document):

----
Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)

 readonly attribute Document 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/
----

Thanks,
Hans

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Deborah Dahl
<dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
> I agree that Document would be more useful.
>
>
>
> From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:18 AM
> To: Hans Wennborg
> Cc: olli@pettay.fi; Young, Milan; Deborah Dahl; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires;
> public-speech-api@w3.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft
> posted)
>
>
>
> 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 Monday, 11 June 2012 09:56:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 09:56:43 GMT