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

Re: <device> questions

From: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:59:35 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinaonCmhyo5XqOy7bDLm5_3qsjt+3NDyUq+aYhj@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Hi Milan,

The Device API is not part of the Device Access and Policy WG (DAP WG).
Please join the WHAT WG which handles the Device API as part of the HTML5
spec.

Cheers
Satish


On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote:

>  I just joined the Audio and Device working groups.  Will start
> participating at the start of the year.
>
>
>
> But I still think it may be appropriate to request an invited expert.  I
> remember doing this in the VBWG when we were considering DOM integration
> with VoiceXML events.  It was effective in getting us quickly up to speed.
>
>
>
> Maybe something for the <chair>s to consider.
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Satish Sampath [mailto:satish@google.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:36 AM
>
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: <device> questions
>
>
>
> Yes there is a risk, though there is sufficient interest in a Device API
> that it will be picked up soon (I think Ericsson Labs even have a prototype
> implementation out now).
>
>
>
> > Any thoughts about inviting IETF and/or Connection Peer experts to our
> calls?
>
>
>
> I'm not very sure, but if we want to contribute to the Device API spec
> perhaps some of us should participate in their group/call rather than
> inviting them to ours?
>
>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>  On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Satish.  Great information.
>
>
>
> The line between requirements and implementation is starting to blur.
> Perhaps it would be worth our while to investigate the <device> approach in
> parallel with requirements.
>
>
>
> The approach carries risk, because we might find <device> to be a dead
> end.  But then at least we would know itís a dead end and it would better
> frame the protocol and privacy discussions.  At present itís difficult
> because the potential implementation paths are so diverse.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts about inviting IETF and/or Connection Peer experts to our
> calls?
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Satish Sampath [mailto:satish@google.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:16 PM
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: <device> questions
>
>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 15 December 2010 18:00:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 December 2010 18:00:06 GMT