W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API - seeking feedback for eventual standardization

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:36:28 +0900
To: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Cc: olli@pettay.fi, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Peter Beverloo <peter@chromium.org>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Message-ID: <20120111113627.GF93766@sideshowbarker>
Satish S <satish@google.com>, 2012-01-11 10:04 +0000:

> The Community Groups [1] page says they are for "anyone to socialize their
> ideas for the Web at the W3C for possible future standardization".

I don't think that page adequately describes the potential value of the
Community Group option. A CG can be used for much more than just
socializing ideas for some hope of standardization someday.

> The HTML Speech Incubator Group has done a considerable amount of work and
> the final report [2] is quite detailed with requirements, use cases and API
> proposals. Since we are interested in transitioning to the standards track
> now, working with the relevant WGs seems more appropriate than forming a
> new Community Group.

I can understand you seeing it that way, but I hope you can also understand
me saying that I'm not at all sure it's more appropriate for this work.

I think everybody could agree that the point is not just to produce a spec
that is nominally on the W3C standards track. Having something on the W3C
standards track doesn't necessarily do anything magical to ensure that
anybody actually implements it.

I think we all want is to for Web-platform technologies to actually get
implemented across multiple browsers, interoperably -- preferably sooner
rather than later. Starting from the WG option is not absolutely always the
best way to cause that to happen. It is almost certainly not the best way
to ensure it will get done more quickly.

You can start up a CG and have the work formally going on within that CG in
a matter of days, literally. In contrast, getting it going formally as a
deliverable within a WG requires a matter of months.

Among the things that are valuable about formal deliverables in WGs is that
they get you RF commitments from participants in the WG. But one thing that
I think not everybody understands about CGs is that they also get you RF
commitments from participants in the CG; everybody in the CG has to agree
to the terms of the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement -

  http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/

Excerpt: "I agree to license my Essential Claims under the W3C CLA RF
Licensing Requirements. This requirement includes Essential Claims that I own"

Anyway, despite what it may seem like from what I've said above, I'm not
trying to do a hard sell here. It's up to you all what you choose to do.
But I would like to help make sure you're making a fully informed decision
based on what the actual benefits and costs of the different options are.

  --Mike

> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/about/#cg
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith
http://people.w3.org/mike/+
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 11:40:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:49 GMT