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: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:22:51 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGn1-_UW_i9__ErVBZ_iKh2X3JwOYTeUVbVqtUhn0tDxzBUjmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: Satish S <satish@google.com>, 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>
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the info!

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.

We have strong interest from Mozilla and Google to implement. Would
this not be sufficient to have this API designed in this group?


> 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 13:29:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:38 UTC