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

Re: "Protocol" requirement - Re-recognition

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:51:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4D0A4396.3030801@helsinki.fi>
To: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Robert Brown <Robert.Brown@microsoft.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
On 12/14/2010 12:34 PM, Bjorn Bringert wrote:
> Given that we at least have an acceptable strawman API for it, I'm
> ok with adding this requirement. (I don't consider it a high
> priority, but that's for the next phase.)


I agree. Not a high priority, but
we can have the requirement.

-Olli


>
> /Bjorn
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Young, Milan<Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> wrote:
>> The requirements seem vague on the source of the recognized audio.
>> But I suspect most folks have assumed it would be supplied with the
>> request.
>>
>> While I agree that my request might not amount to any additional
>> work in the specification or implementation, I'd prefer to be
>> specific.
>>
>> The proposed requirement is simply: "Web applications must be able
>> to request recognition based on previously sent audio."
>>
>> Objections?
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Bringert
>> [mailto:bringert@google.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:13
>> PM To: Young, Milan Cc: Robert Brown; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: "Protocol" requirement - Re-recognition
>>
>> What's wrong with prioritizing based on complexity? In the end we
>> want to finish some specs, and get browser vendors to ship
>> implementations. Both of those are made easier by reducing
>> complexity.
>>
>> Robert's imagined implementation suggestion should be doable with
>> existing requirements btw, since we have requirements for
>> implementation-dependent parameters and results.
>>
>> /Bjorn
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Young,
>> Milan<Milan.Young@nuance.com>  wrote:
>>> I suspect even the aggressive folks in the group share your
>>> aversion to prioritizing based on complexity.  But it's part of
>>> the reality of having a tight deadline.  We want to be careful
>>> about putting in requirements if they are going to cause a slip.
>>>
>>> Regarding implementation, I think you and I are pretty much
>>> aligned.  I think having a session end to mark cleanup is
>>> preferred over a 404, but not an important issue in the
>>> requirements phase.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Robert Brown
>>> [mailto:Robert.Brown@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, December 13,
>>> 2010 5:34 PM To: Young, Milan; Bjorn Bringert Cc:
>>> public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: RE: "Protocol" requirement -
>>> Re-recognition
>>>
>>>>> * Is re-recognition a mainstream feature.  Not sure how we
>>>>> could come to agreement on this one outside a vote.
>>>
>>> "Mainstream" is hard to define.  Re-reco is definitely valuable
>>> and certainly used in common real-world apps.  But if we didn't
>>> define it, a speech service or middle tier could still do it
>>> behind the scenes.  So it's not critical.  Just desirable.
>>>
>>>>> * How much additional work in spec and implementation would
>>>>> be required for re-recognition.  I suspect if we can come to
>>>>> agreement on session tracking, re-recognition will look a lot
>>>>> like interpretation.
>>>
>>> I'm wary of prioritizing based on complexity.  The first question
>>> is more important: do we need this to build real world apps?
>>>
>>> FWIW, I can *imagine* a pretty simple solution to this.  e.g. say
>>> we use HTTP as a basis, if you want re-reco, put a "rereco"
>>> header in the request, with no value.  The response includes a
>>> token in the rereco header that can be used in a consequent
>>> request.  The token could be whatever the service wants to return
>>> (a key to a lookup table, a URI, whatever).  If the token has
>>> timed-out, the service returns a 410, or a 404.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>> public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Young,
>>> Milan Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 11:42 AM To: Bjorn
>>> Bringert Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: RE: "Protocol"
>>> requirement - Re-recognition
>>>
>>> There seem to be two issues at stake here:
>>>
>>> * Is re-recognition a mainstream feature.  Not sure how we could
>>> come to agreement on this one outside a vote.
>>>
>>> * How much additional work in spec and implementation would be
>>> required for re-recognition.  I suspect if we can come to
>>> agreement on session tracking, re-recognition will look a lot
>>> like interpretation.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Bringert
>>> [mailto:bringert@google.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:17
>>> AM To: Young, Milan Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org Subject: Re:
>>> "Protocol" requirement - Re-recognition
>>>
>>> While there are use cases for this, I don't think that they are
>>> important enough to warrant the increased complexity in managing
>>> storage, references, and garbage collection of previously
>>> recorded audio. Every feature that we ask browsers to implement
>>> makes it harder for them to support our API.
>>>
>>> /Bjorn
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Young,
>>> Milan<Milan.Young@nuance.com>  wrote:
>>>> Summary - Web applications must be able to request recognition
>>>> based on previously sent audio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Description - It's not always clear which grammars to activate
>>>> at the start of a dialog.  If selection was incorrect, the user
>>>> should not be required to repeat in order to try a new grammar.
>>>> Due to latency and bandwidth considerations, the protocol must
>>>> not require that audio needs to be resent in order to
>>>> accomplish this task.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave
>>> House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in
>>> England Number: 3977902
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave
>> House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in
>> England Number: 3977902
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 16:52:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 December 2010 16:52:16 GMT