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

RE: "Protocol" requirement - Best practices

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:12:39 -0800
Message-ID: <1AA381D92997964F898DF2A3AA4FF9AD099F5CCD@SUN-EXCH01.nuance.com>
To: "Bjorn Bringert" <bringert@google.com>
Cc: <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
As long as we as a group equate a violation of best practices to "bad", I'm OK with dropping this requirement.

But based on correspondence about a week ago, it seemed like the violation was being interpreted as "sub-optimal, but OK if it speeds up spec timeline".

Anyway, perhaps we can put this one on hold and see how the others play out.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:10 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Subject: Re: "Protocol" requirement - Best practices

What is best practices seems like a matter of interpretation. This is
a bit like saying "proposals should not be bad". There are a lot of
technical problems that proposals could have, and I don't think
there's much point in enumerating them in the requirements.


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> Summary - Communication between Web application and remote speech service
> must not rely on procedures which are in conflict to best practices
> established by underlying protocol.
> Description - Want to avoid a situation where the only way of accomplishing
> requirements is through a violation of best practices.  For example, if
> requirements could only be attained by disabling HTTP 1.1 persistent
> connections, that would be an unacceptable proposal.

Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 19:13:15 UTC

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