RE: An early draft of a speech API

>> [the one defined by WhatWG] is more likely to be implemented in browsers.  (Browser vendors aren't members of DAP WG, IIRC)

Extremely skeptical :-/  The same comment could be made in reverse.  In what way is Internet Explorer involved in the WhatWG effort?

There's nothing stopping browser vendors from providing feedback to the W3C DAP WG, even if they're not members of the group.

-----Original Message-----
From: pettay@mappi.helsinki.fi [mailto:pettay@mappi.helsinki.fi] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Satish Sampath; Olli@pettay.fi; Olli Pettay; Robert Brown; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org; Bjorn Bringert
Subject: RE: An early draft of a speech API

Lainaus "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>:

> I'm new to the visual browser space and am having a hard time 
> understanding the <device> vs capture debate.

There is no <device> anymore. There are two APIs, one defined by W3C DAP WG, which isn't based on streaming, and the other defined by WhatWG and that one supports streaming. The latter one is very new, yet it is more likely to be implemented in browsers.
(Browser vendors aren't members of DAP WG, IIRC)

Both APIs are still drafts.


Olli

>
> Anyone willing to provide a list of pros and cons?  Perhaps a blog pointer?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Sampath [mailto:satish@google.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:06 PM
> To: Olli@pettay.fi
> Cc: Olli Pettay; Young, Milan; Robert Brown; 
> public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org; Bjorn Bringert
> Subject: Re: An early draft of a speech API
>
> There is a good momentum behind the recent WHATWG proposal update for 
> real time communication at 
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/dnd.html#video-conferencing-and-peer-to-peer-communication.

> The previous <device> tag version of this proposal was already being 
> prototyped and implemented by various vendors in the browser space.
> Notably, Opera released a prototype recently at 
> http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2011/03/14/web-meet-device and Ericsson 
> Labs showed a prototype in webkit at 
> https://labs.ericsson.com/developer-community/blog/beyond-html5-implementing-device-and-stream-management-webkit.

>
> The fact that browser vendors are getting involved in this spec 
> proposal should encourage our XG to build upon this spec for the 
> remote recognizer use cases. I think this would be better than the DAP 
> device API which browser vendors have not picked up. However this 
> proposal is still a moving target and will likely evolve quickly.
>
> Since all 3 proposals address the default recognizer case without any 
> external dependencies, I think it would be ideal to finalise a 
> concrete recommendation for that without getting blocked on remote 
> recognizers. That will allow browser vendors to implement the default 
> recognizers without having to wait for implementations to pick up the 
> DAP or WHATWG proposal for the audio capture part. We should of course 
> work on the remote recognizer proposal in parallel, but I don't see 
> why it should be a reason to gate a proposal for the simpler use case 
> with the default recognizer.
>
> --
> Cheers
> Satish
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 23:57:23 UTC