RE: speech API proposal (from Microsoft)

Hello, a few comments:

 

 

6.1  

- I saw that you used standard VoiceXML parameter names for the timeouts
in section 6.4 (eg incompletetimeout), but you invented non-speech aware
versions for the capture API.  But wouldn't it be more forward looking
to use the speech-aware variants for the capture API as well?  One day
the endpointer may wish to integrate to the recognizer.

 

- I didn't quite understand where the endpointing would take place.  Is
this implemented by the UA?

 

 

6.2 

- I'm interested to know your reasoning for choosing XHR2 over
WebSockets.

 

- I've been listening in on the RTW mailing list.  They are discussing
sending RTP from the browser so this might be another longer term
option.  The RTW guys are proposing to solve the DOS security problem by
an authentication protocol at the start of the session.  It would
involve the browser, server, and all routers in the path.

 

 

6.4

- What do you think about using the MRCP RECOGNIZE method as the base
format instead of inventing something so similar?

- JSON is pretty usually preferred on the Web over XML.  What do you
think about allowing multiple EMMA presentation types?

 

 

9

- You gave "implementation-specific events" one star.  But I couldn't
figure out how this would work at all.

 

 

Thank you

 

 

________________________________

From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert Brown
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:11 AM
To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Subject: speech API proposal (from Microsoft)

 

Hi Everyone, 

 

Our proposal is posted here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Mar/att-0001/microso
ft-api-draft-final.html 

 

It proposes some extensions to existing APIs, as well as some
speech-specific objects, and some speech-specific HTML.

 

Cheers,

 

/Rob