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

Re: <device> questions

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:09:42 -0800
Message-ID: <4D090466.5090501@helsinki.fi>
To: Satish Sampath <satish@google.com>
CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
On 12/15/2010 09:59 AM, Satish Sampath wrote:
> 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.

And AFAIK neither Mozilla nor Google is anymore in DAP WG.

-Olli


>
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:satish@google.com>]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:36 AM
>
>
>     *To:* Young, Milan
>     *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto:satish@google.com>]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:16 PM
>     *To:* Young, Milan
>     *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org <mailto: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 18:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 December 2010 18:10:25 GMT