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

Re: Overview paragraph

From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:38:37 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTikCFcdcdri+xgzx8GRd9RG8U1KS9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>
Cc: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI)" <dd5826@att.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
As an express goal, perhaps we should clearly state that applications that
use the default/built-in recognizer should be portable across all browsers
and speech engines. Beyond that, if the web app chooses to use a particular
engine by specifying a URL it seems ok to rely on extended/additional
capabilities provided by that engine.

Cheers
Satish


On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>wrote:

> Deborah is right that not all speech engines will have the same
> capabilities, but we should strive to provide general parameterizations of
> the potential capabilities wherever possible. Otherwise engine providers
> will need to add their own extensions to the standard, and development will
> get fractured across the lines of browser/engine, as we saw happen with
> earlier Javascript XML handlers, etc.
>
> On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:27, "Deborah Dahl" <
> dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > across
> >> speech engines. Starting with "may be portable" doesn't seem to fit the
> > spirit
> >> of the web. Any extensions for speech engine specific parameters and
> >> results should be optional.
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 19:39:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 April 2011 19:39:05 GMT