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: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:09:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1AA381D92997964F898DF2A3AA4FF9AD0E0462D2@SUN-EXCH01.nuance.com>
To: Satish S <satish@google.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
CC: ext Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, <olli@pettay.fi>, <public-webapps@w3.org>, <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>, Peter Beverloo <peter@chromium.org>
Arthur Barstow requested "1. Relatively clear scope of the feature(s).
(This information should be detailed enough for WG members with relevant
IP to be able to make an IP assessment.)"  If you are just looking for a
ballpark, then the Google subset is probably sufficient.  But if you are
instead looking for a coherent set of topics that are likely to be
discussed and potentially spec'd within WebApps, then the HtmlSpeech XG
recommendation would be a better point of reference.

 

If that document is found to be lacking (or overflowing) in detail such
that it prevents an IP assessment, please let me know.  My personal
recommendation is to start in section 5.1.1 which lists the requirements
supported by at least 80% of interested participants.

 

 

For #2 (editor commitments), please add myself to the list.

 

For #3 (implementation commitments), Nuance will be happy to implement
functionality required of "network speech services".  This is a term
used extensively in the XG recommendation.

 

For #4 (testing commitments), Nuance will be happy to support this as it
relates to #3.

 

 

Thank you

 

 

 

From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:54 AM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: ext Glen Shires; olli@pettay.fi; public-webapps@w3.org;
public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org; Dan Burnett; Peter Beverloo
Subject: Re: Speech Recognition and Text-to-Speech Javascript API -
seeking feedback for eventual standardization

 

		Per #4 Testing commitment(s): can you elaborate on what
you would like to see at this point?

	 

	At this point, I think a `warm fuzzy` like "if/when the spec
advances to Candidate Recommendation, we will contribute to a test suite
that is sufficient to exit the CR" would be useful.

 

Yes we will contribute to a test suite that is sufficient for the
Candidate Recommendation.

 

		Also, what is the next step?

	 

	WRT the API you proposed, I think we have enough preliminary
feedback for me to start a CfC to add the API to WebApps charter. My
only concern is the open question (at least to me) re the markup part.
It seems like it would be useful to review the proposed API and markup
together. However, a CfC for the markup can be done separately (provided
sufficient interest/commitment is expressed).

 

In the spirit of starting with the basics and iterating we did not
include markup in the proposed API. Markup support also renders cleanly
as a layer on top of the JS API with few additions, so as you suggest if
there is sufficient interest/commitment a separate CfC could be done.

 
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:10:11 GMT

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