Re: Request to change WebSpeech to remove usage of SpeechSynthesisVoiceList

Should I get working on this asap?


On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:

> I agree, this makes for a cleaner, more modern IDL and doesn't affect the
> JavaScript syntax.  So unless there is disagreement, I will add the
> following to the errata on Feb 4.
>
> Remove SpeechSynthesisVoiceList and change:
>
> interface SpeechSynthesis {
>         sequence<SpeechSynthesisVoice> getVoices();
> };
>
> Remove SpeechRecognitionResultList and change:
>
> interface SpeechRecognitionEvent : Event {
>         readonly attribute sequence<SpeechRecognitionResult> results;
> };
>
>
>
> Also, we might consider a similar change to SpeechGrammarList, but it's
> not as straight-forward because this object has methods. Any proposals?
>
> Glen
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <
> tommyw@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I am doing exactly the same to the WebRTC stuff in WebKit. The
>> recentish support for sequence<> in WebKit rocks. And the change
>> wouldn't break anything either.
>>
>> /Tommy
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Chris Fleizach <cfleizach@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I think that instead of using the custom SpeechSynthesisVoiceList
>> object, we can use a normative Javascript array to return the list of voices
>> >> in getVoices().
>> >>
>> >> The IDL change would change from
>> >>
>> >> interface SpeechSynthesis {
>> >>         SpeechSynthesisVoiceList getVoices();
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> to
>> >>
>> >> interface SpeechSynthesis {
>> >>         sequence<SpeechSynthesisVoice> getVoices();
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> Then the SpeechSynthesisVoiceList can be removed.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your consideration
>> >
>> > +tommyw
>> >
>> > I guess this would apply to the other lists in the spec too? I.e.
>> > SpeechGrammarList and SpeechRecognitionResultList?
>> >
>> > Seems like this would both simplify the spec and implementation a bit.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Hans
>>
>>
>