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

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

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:34:23 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHZf7RkO_JT3-VByH5Wi8=W+=rQhw278FTaFN6o1JpfTR4J1OQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
>
> EMMA isnít just about additional data from the recognizer.  Itís a
> serialized form of the recognition thatís useful for everything from
> compatibility with an MMI architecture to logging.  Deborah gave a few use
> cases and I could probably add others.****
>
> ** **
>
> So while we agree that JS properties are more useful to the code that runs
> inside the browser, we have to understand that isnít the whole story.
>

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. My proposal is that if EMMA data was
sent by the recognizer (not just additional data but all encompassing as
you mention) then it makes sense to pass it on to the web page in a DOM
document form (emmaXML or just emma). If however the recognizer did not
send back EMMA data then the UA can leave that field null.

This satisfies the use cases that have been brought up so far and any
future use case which will need EMMA, because I'm not advocating stripping
out data from the received EMMA xml.

Why is this a point of concern?
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:34:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:35:00 GMT