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

[minutes] 28 July 2011

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 17:16:50 -0400
Message-Id: <DD7AB797-C062-4361-B840-5D995DB7EF2F@voxeo.com>
To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org

The minutes from the last call are available at http://www.w3.org/2011/07/28-htmlspeech-minutes.html.

For convenience, a text version is embedded below.

Thanks to Milan Young for taking the minutes.

-- dan


              HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference

28 Jul 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Jul/0028.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/07/28-htmlspeech-irc


          Daniel_Burnett, Robert_Brown, Milan_Young, Michael_Johnston,
          Patrick_Ehlen, Debbie_Dahl, Olli_Pettay, Charles_Hemphill,




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Protocol report
         2. [6]Protocol work
         3. [7]Organizing parameters of a function
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

Protocol report

   Robert: About 1 week behind scedule
   ... Draft review is public
   ... Expect to incorperate redraft in one week

   Dan: Need to discuss timings

   Robert: Seems like a logisitcal challange

   Bjorn: What is use case for async sending notifications?

   Robert: Still debating

   Dan: Let's talk now
   ... maybe at end of call
   ... Michael is still on vacation
   ... but doesn't look like alot of progress on API group

   Bjorn: Agree that there has been no progress

   Dan: Will speak with Michael when he returns

   Bjorn: There are many outstanding tasks which were assigned by

   Dan: Agree that we need to follow-up on those tasks

   Debbie: It's helpful if people just do their own requirements
   ... rather than wait for Raj

   Robert: Perhaps we should do a task "role call" now

   Dan: Good idea

   <burn> Reminder email is
      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Jul/0018.html

   Dan: No communication from Raj

   Charles: Did re-review Microsoft proposal
   ... need to flesh out more of the JavaScript API and maybe make a
   case for markup

   Dan: Need to send everyting ASAP

   Charles: Will try to send by next week

   Dan: Don't have my task done, and no idea when it will be complete
   ... and no estimate

   Oillie: Have something in mind, but need to formally write up
   ... will send in next couple days

   Dan: Did recieve something from DanD, but not on the call today
   ... but it needs more discussion
   ... Did recieve something from Debbie

   Debbie: Would like to review item #5
   ... If time today would like to discuss how to organize parameters
   ... could get something out by middle of next week
   ... don't expect a full rewrite, just cleanup and making more

   Dan: Want to review Bjorn's proposal
   ... but haven't been on the call
   ... Did Michael fufil his taks?
   ... Doesn't seem like he has
   ... That is complete list of assignments
   ... but still unassigned tasks
   ... can do this on email, not just by conference
   ... Anything that needs to be discussed before charter expires?
   ... Floated idea to IETF that we may want to formalize the work of
   the protocol group
   ... Can take a few months to get a group together, so think about
   this now
   ... Need to "socialize" and then BOF session for next IETF
   ... BOF writes the charter
   ... correction, BOF only approves the charter
   ... so should do this in advance
   ... had some conversations with Francois (from W3C)
   ... said we were well positioned for a working group creation
   ... next week is avaible for discussion for subgroup

Protocol work

   <burn> milan: Bjorn did you get my email on async events?

   <burn> bjorn: yes. why would there be an event rather than something
   generated in UA?

   <burn> milan: there are many different modalities.

   <burn> bjorn: so why do we need an event channel?

   <burn> bjorn: this would be adding a feature for something else to
   hijack speech channel and turn it into generic notification channel.
   it's not necessary.

   <burn> charles: do we really need async results?

   <burn> milan: you can request something from server and it might
   have a delayed result

   <burn> bjorn: all responses are asynchronous

   <burn> charles: why do we need events separate from requests?

   <burn> milan: client wouldn't request a response, but server just
   sends event

   <burn> bjorn: doesn't belong. all info from server may be delayed
   but must still be in response to a request

   <burn> milan: okay

   <burn> milan: ... I'm fine with that

Organizing parameters of a function


     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Jun/0086.html

   Debbie: How to ballance parmeters to put in a recognition request vs
   on the general channel
   ... Pick most important properties to put on the recognizer request

   Bjorn: Everything should be an attribute on the recognition object

   Dan: Discussed parameter effects being immediate

   Bjorn: Might have an "updateParameter" method to for them to take

   Charles: Pause / resume functionality ?

   Dan: Continous recognition means change at any point

   <burn> bjorn: what's the use case for changing params while reco is

   <burn> milan: that's how client can send events to server, e.g.
   mouse click occurred

   <burn> bjorn: that's different from setting a param

   <burn> milan: we don't have a way to send without setting parameters

   <burn> bjorn: in protocol maybe, but we're talking about webapi now

   <burn> robert: may be difficult to coordinate. better to send new
   grammar and then say when grammar is to begin applying

   <burn> ... in continuous reco may transition through many different
   modes. audio needs to be continuous, need to say that grammars

   <burn> ... won't have to deal with maxnbest, etc. can set that up
   before reco. won't change language

   Dan: Interesting mentioned language

   Robert: Might have to change reconizers with the language

   Bjorn: method to apply current parameters

   Robjert: Consdier XHR
   ... if no outstanding request, then can change parameters

   Bjorn: Then two types of parametesr

   Charles: Runtime vs setup parameters

   Dan: Always have some take place immediately and some not, but how
   does that affect API?

   <smaug> setParameters({ param1: value, param2: value2})

   <burn> bjorn: atomicity is the issue, but nothing else in HTML has

   Robert: Example of nice HTML API
   ... perhaps Bjorn could send over email

   Debbie: Leave this as an open issues
   ... will start email thread
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 21:17:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:50 UTC