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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:18:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7RmjaZ3kaMchgQN6kEyYUe0xCz2UJJRVE8SZLHPP47N27Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
If there are EMMA attributes that are mandatory for specific use cases, we
should post to the MMI WG and get those changes into the EMMA
recommendation published at http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/. I'm sure they will
be interested in incorporating them and Deborah Dahl can help as well since
she is one of the authors.

Cheers
Satish


On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

> Hello Hans,
>
> I did respond to this thread, but it got forked.  The upshot is that we
> should go with my second (most recent) proposal, not my first proposal
> (that Satish supported).  The reason is that the first proposal did not
> allow us to achieve the interoperability use cases that Deborah put forward.
>
> To addresses Satish's most recent argument, the likely hood of an
> application failing because the EMMA result contains an extra couple
> attributes is small.  This is because 1) most EMMA implementations support
> these attributes already, 2) we're dealing with XML which abstracts
> low-level parsing, 3) If an application did fail, the fix would be trivial.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennborg@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:56 AM
> To: Deborah Dahl
> Cc: Satish S; olli@pettay.fi; Young, Milan; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires;
> public-speech-api@w3.org
> Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft
> posted)
>
> 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 16:19:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 June 2012 16:19:03 GMT