Re: Call for final specification commitments

Web Speech API sounds good!

Cheers
Satish


On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:

> Yes, let's address those issues...
>
> I have now proposed the change to fix EventTarget. [1]
> The proposals for the other open issues are:
>   [2] omit "static" from interface SpeechSynthesis.
>   [3] omit copy of utterance in speak() method.
>
> As for the spec name: in my opinion "Web Speech API" is a good name, any
> disagreement with this name?
>
>  Glen Shires
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0057.html
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0056.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/2012Oct/0050.html
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2012 01:17 AM, Glen Shires wrote:
>>
>>> The spec is looking pretty solid, so as is common practice for a
>>> Community Group, I propose to take a snapshot of the spec on Friday October
>>> 19 and
>>> call for final specification commitments.
>>>
>>> Glen Shires
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IMHO, Speech synthesis part is quite far from "solid" API.
>> As an example currently nothing in the spec is marked as EventTarget yet
>> there are some
>> event handlers (which ofc can't fire because there is no target etc.)
>>
>>
>> Also, the spec name sure shouldn't be
>> Speech JavaScript API Specification,
>> but something like Speech API or Web Speech API ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Olli
>>
>
>