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

Re: Overview paragraph

From: Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:00:22 -0700
To: Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
CC: Satish S <satish@google.com>, "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI)" <dd5826@att.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F7A37F7E-21CF-49EE-9EBB-7F7EFF00A7C4@attinteractive.com>
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 Thursday, 21 April 2011 12:49:27 UTC

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