W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > December 2010

Re: UA <=> SS Protocol

From: Dave Burke <daveburke@google.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:19:14 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimsvEfTr+r96vGdD9AH3STav2SLui4Awj+TZ+yW@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
<chair hat="on">

Within our XG, I think it's OK to suggest the existence of a protocol and
possibly even specify requirements for that protocol. But defining/designing
it neither fits into the purview of our charter nor in fact that of the W3C.
Protocols for the Web instead belong in the IETF, and a possible route here
is that one or more interested parties create an individual-contributed
Internet-Draft in that space.

This is a well trodden path. For example, the WebSocket API is being
standardized by the W3C and the WebSocket protocol is being standardized by
the IETF. Similarly, for VoiceXML, a couple of like-minded W3C folks got
together and wrote RFC 5552 to define the SIP protocol/interface to VoiceXML


On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  On the call today we agreed to split the protocol discussion from the web
> API.  This will both make it easier to read the document, and allow folks to
> easily filter out discussions which are not relevant to them.  But both sets
> of requirements will continue to reside in the XG document which Michael
> maintains.
> Before getting into the weeds of the protocol discussion, I’d like to
> suggest deleting FPR30 which currently reads: “The communication between the
> user agent and the speech server must require a mandatory-to-support lowest
> common denominator such as HTTP 1.1, TBD.”
> I propose to replace this with a new requirement which will mark the start
> of the new protocol section.  The heading will read:  “User agents and
> speech services are required to support at least one common protocol.”  And
> the description that follows: “A common protocol will be defined as part of
> the final recommendation.  It will be built upon some TBD existing
> application layer protocol such as HTTP.”
> Acceptable?
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 13:19:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:48 UTC