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

RE: "Protocol" requirement - Interpretation

From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:19:03 -0800
Message-ID: <1AA381D92997964F898DF2A3AA4FF9AD099F5CE7@SUN-EXCH01.nuance.com>
To: "Bjorn Bringert" <bringert@google.com>
Cc: <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
XmlHttpRequest may work fine, but it assumes a largely bypassed UA to handle other requirements such as session tracking.  It also assumes a SS with an HTTP server.

So while I share your optimism on these points, I agree with Michael that we need to be careful.

Any objections with adding this to spec even if it may later be rendered trivial by device approach?


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

Why does this have to be part of the speech API? Remote text
interpretation can be done without using any speech APIs. I've
implemented that myself a couple of times using just XmlHttpRequest.


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> Summary - Web applications must be able to request NL interpretation based
> only on text input (no audio sent).
> Description - Recognizers commonly separate lexical speech token processing
> from its semantic understanding.  This often requires multiple passes of
> semantic processing.

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 19:19:44 UTC

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