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

Re: UA <=> SS Protocol

From: Marc Schroeder <marc.schroeder@dfki.de>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:22:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4CFB9216.6070004@dfki.de>
To: Robert Brown <Robert.Brown@microsoft.com>
CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Dave Burke <daveburke@google.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
I also agree that having just the API and not the protocol would be a 
dramatic limitation. Fine for me to be pragmatic about where the work is 
done -- if it is appropriate to formulate the protocol in the IETF 
rather than the W3C, so be it.

What I think *is* important is that the same group of people (i.e., us) 
think through the requirements to both specs, or else they won't fit 
together properly. So I guess the appropriate way to proceed is for us 
to continue collecting the two sets of requirements (on the API, and on 
the protocol), and then to discuss / decide in which organisational 
structure those of us who want to see a protocol being defined are going 
to do that work.


On 03.12.10 21:12, Robert Brown wrote:
> (I’m struggling to come up with a funny quip about Dave wearing a chair
> on his head, but haven’t succeeded yet… :P )
> Dave has a good point. I’m not sure it’s a slam-dunk, but we should
> discuss it.
> I pretty much agree with Milan. Browser-independence is critical and
> protocol requirements of the type we’re discussing here are fundamental
> to that. Furthermore, I **fundamentally** don’t believe very many (any?)
> interesting and practical applications can be built without this, for
> all the reasons previously discussed over the last month, in a number of
> different requirements.
> In other words, I don’t think this XG has much practical value without
> being backed by a reasonable protocol. I also believe we’re the best
> group to identify the requirements for that protocol. Whether we include
> the protocol specification in our charter, or have the same group of
> people work with the IETF (and if so, when), is worth discussing.
> Personally, I think it’s more pragmatic that this group make a
> recommendation based on our determination of requirements from the API
> discussion, and then determine whether it needs to be taken further with
> another group.
> *From:*public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Young, Milan
> *Sent:* Friday, December 03, 2010 10:25 AM
> *To:* Dave Burke
> *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: UA <=> SS Protocol
> 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
> <mailto: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?

Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH
Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE http://www.semaine-project.eu
Project leader for DFKI in SSPNet http://sspnet.eu
Project leader PAVOQUE http://mary.dfki.de/pavoque
Associate Editor IEEE Trans. Affective Computing http://computer.org/tac
Editor W3C EmotionML Working Draft http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/
Portal Editor http://emotion-research.net
Team Leader DFKI TTS Group http://mary.dfki.de

Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
Email: marc.schroeder@dfki.de
Phone: +49-681-85775-5303
Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 
Saarbrücken, Germany
Official DFKI coordinates:
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 13:23:03 UTC

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