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

Re: Co-chair

From: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:34:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB8jPhdL=asxgR0mDDy+cEKW3Gc2T+sSqmhnM-FODw+u08nB2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>, "Doug Schepers (schepers@w3.org)" <schepers@w3.org>, "olli@pettay.fi" <olli@pettay.fi>, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "bringert@google.com" <bringert@google.com>, "satish@google.com" <satish@google.com>, "raj@openstream.com (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, "dahl@conversational-technologies.com Dahl" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> Glen,
> Anyone who was following [1] knew that giving up those attributes was a major concession, and attached to that concession was the request that use cases be documented [6].  It was wrong for the Google editor to quickly add the text they were interested while not even acknowledging the content of the arrangement.  What we need is a commitment that this class of editing will not take place in the future.  A pat on the back for a 14 minute turnaround time is exactly the wrong response.

Hi Milan,

I am sorry you think that edit happened too quickly. My impression
from the thread was that we had reached consensus on the wording of
the text for the emma attribute, and that it was therefore ready to go
into the draft. I figured we would then continue discussing the
wording and placement of the use cases. I am sorry if I misinterpreted
the thread or was not clear enough in my own message.

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 09:35:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:26 UTC