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

Re: <device> questions

From: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:15:59 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDfLcbpx6J=-9G+VD32u1Nb_yMAgcyqXjZhmys@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Hi Milan,

  * How does the connection peer proposal tie in with streaming speech
> audio?  I see support for addStream(), but this whole API seems to be
> oriented around peers rather than client/server.  Is this just a pattern to
> follow, or would we try to re-use verbatim?
>

Yes ConnectionPeer is currently geared towards peers and I was hoping we
from this XG can influence to add client-to-server functionality as well.


>   * Any thoughts on using WebSockets to transmit the data?  Lower overhead
> might make it a better choice for streaming compared to chunking.
> Bidirectional communication would enable additional use cases and would
> probably simplify the process of canceling a request.
>

WebSockets are good if the data being sent and received is text/strings and
is available to the web application. Were you thinking about the web app's
script getting raw audio and sending through a websocket, or just connecting
a stream from the <device> tag to a websocket? The latter seems close to the
ConnectionPeer model and we may have to get in touch with the WebSockets
group in IETF to discuss.


>   * Is anyone aware of standards work exposing the microphone via <device>,
> or would this be virgin territory?  Privacy is an area where we will have a
> lot of requirements.
>

As of now we just have a generic "media" which is suitable for audio+video
capture devices. I think we can bring it up in the WHATWG mailing list with
our use cases. Privacy should already be an issue which <device> will be
addressing and we could piggy back on that.
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 22:16:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 December 2010 22:16:34 GMT