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

RE: UA <=> SS Protocol

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:24:54 -0800
Message-ID: <1AA381D92997964F898DF2A3AA4FF9AD098DF6E6@SUN-EXCH01.nuance.com>
To: "Dave Burke" <daveburke@google.com>
Cc: <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
Hello Dave,

 

I'm interested to hear from the other chairs and Robert from Microsoft
on this subject.  But personally I could be convinced to proceed in the
direction you are suggesting.

 

I would like agreement, however, that there will be a tight coupling
between the UA API specification and the protocol.  Referencing the
WebSocket model, for example, the abstract at the top of the document
states: "This specification defines an API that enables Web pages to use
the WebSocket protocol for two-way communication with a remote host."

 

In the paragraph below we see similarly binding language: "This
specification is being developed in conjunction with an Internet Draft
for a wire protocol, the WebSocket Protocol..."

 

I believe such a yin/yang relationship is necessary to achieve the
"browser-independent" experience suggested by our mission statement.
Concretely, when a specification is finally produced, no UA could call
itself conformant unless it implemented the required portions of both
specifications.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

________________________________

From: Dave Burke [mailto:daveburke@google.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:19 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Subject: Re: UA <=> SS Protocol

 

<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 servers.

 

</chair>

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 18:25:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 18:25:33 GMT