W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > April 2011

RE: Overview paragraph

From: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:24:06 -0400
To: "'Satish S'" <satish@google.com>, "'Young, Milan'" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
Cc: "'DRUTA, DAN \(ATTSI\)'" <dd5826@att.com>, <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01c301cbff6f$0627de80$12779b80$@conversational-technologies.com>
I don't think we can reach the goal of applications being completely
portable across speech engines  because speech engines will always have
different capabilities, and some of these are unlikely to be in the scope of
our API.  For example, engines will handle different languages, some engines
will be able to handle larger grammars, some applications will make use of
proprietary SLM's, and some applications won't be usable without an engine
that has a certain level of accuracy. So  I agree with Milan that the goal
is not to standardize functionality across speech engines. I think we should
just say " provide the user with a consistent experience across different
platforms and devices" and leave it at that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish S
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:18 AM
> To: Young, Milan
> Cc: DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI); public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph
> 	>> provide the user with a consistent experience across different
> 	platforms and devices irrespective of the speech engine used.
> 	This effort is not about standardizing functionality across speech
> 	engines.  The goal is speech application portability across the
> 	browsers.  Simple applications MAY be portable across speech engine
> 	boundaries, but that's not a requirement.
> I'd say the API proposal should aim for all applications to be portable
> speech engines. Starting with "may be portable" doesn't seem to fit the
> of the web. Any extensions for speech engine specific parameters and
> results should be optional.
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 15:24:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:49 UTC