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

[minutes] 17 November 2011

From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:46:38 -0500
Message-Id: <7F4DA3BA-9779-4085-827A-C0087DEC412B@voxeo.com>
To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org

The minutes from today's call are available at http://www.w3.org/2011/11/17-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

17 Nov 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0072.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/11/17-htmlspeech-irc


          Milan_Young, Michael_Bodell, Dan_Burnett, Olli_Pettay,
          Debbie_Dahl, Bjorn_Bringert, Satish_Sampath,
          Charles_Hemphill, Glen_Shires, Dan_Druta, Michael_Johnston


          Milan Young


     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Review final report
         2. [6]Satish's proposal to move methods into collections
         3. [7]Next steps

   <burn> Agenda:

      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0072.html

Review final report

   Dan: Content complete
   ... but a few editorial nits remain
   ... contentfull changes have been available for public review

   Debbie: I'd like to review changes

   Bjorn: Add discussion about future working group to agenda today

   <burn> first set of changes:

     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0067.html

   <burn> second list of changes:

     [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0071.html

   Burn: Any questions?
   ... OK, no questions

   Debbie: Need more explanation behind DanD's diagram.
   ... but maybe not necessary because it'
   ... it is just explanitory

   Burn: Probably a major effort to add detailed wording

   Debbie: Perhaps I can take a look to find low-hanging fruit that
   brings clairity

   Burn: Need to stop edits in about one week

   Glen: One sample has allot of psudeo code
   ... and TODOs

   Burn: Agree

   Michael: I will look at that example

   <glen> sample is "Speech Enabled Email Client"

   <glen> particularly onMicClicked method

Satish's proposal to move methods into collections


     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0064.html

   Burn: I'm comfortable either way
   ... other comments?

   Milan: Nice to be able to add collection as a whole

   Satish: Yes, this was part of the design

   Dan: I also like this

   <smaug> looks ok to me

   Dan: Objections to making this change?

   <ddahl1> i think this is a good idea

   Dan: OK, I'll make the change

Next steps

   Dan: Editorial cleanup and short summary
   ... questions?

   Bjourn: Good work so far
   ... Need input from all browser vendors
   ... Google will not join working group unless all browser vendors
   also join
   ... And bring our work to the attention to the HTML working groups
   ... Need Apple and Opera as well as Mozilla, Chrome, and IE

   MBodell: Will not get participation if going to WhatWG
   ... IE participation

   Bjorn: Need more browser discussion, not more speech discussion

   Dan: And also web developer participation
   ... best feedback will probably result from a more focused group

   Bjorn: Yes, as long as all vendors are present

   Satish: Haven't heard from Opera and Apple

   Dan: Yes, I've tried
   ... Charter proposal will be circulated, and we can add strong

   MichaelJ: I made a request to Apple
   ... perhaps we could be happy with 4/5

   Bjorn: Then need to take discussion to where they are

   Dan: This is a significant change in position from Google

   Bjorn: Continued work is almost pointless without browser vendords

   Statish: For example, if we proceed in a silo, we will not know if
   what we produce will be palitable

   Bjorn: Yes, will be a waste to flesh out details if fundamentals are
   not strong

   MichaelJ: Most significant point is the reco element wrt the HTML WG
   ... But JS may not produce as much feedback

   Bjorn: To be clear, I'm not referring to protocol. And JS API is
   included with declarative.
   ... we'll get good feedback when we post XG results

   Dan: Purpose of group is to give a home to feedback requests
   ... and will be best in a dedicated group

   Michael: Nobody is against posting this
   ... to a location of choosing

   Dan: The question is where to handle that feedback
   ... HTML WG is a good major source of comments

   Bjorn: But where does the discussion happen?

   Ollie: Do you expect that HTML WG will produce a separate
   specification or incorporate into existing spec?

   Bjorn: Don't care

   Satish: Should be left to the editor

   Ollie: HTML spec is too large, and this will be lost
   ... so prefer a dedicated spec

   Dan: I'm involved in WebRTC
   ... similar dicussions
   ... and there is a large amount of independent feedback
   ... so it's a framework that is functional

   Debbie: What about an interest group that forms in the interim?

   Bjorn: Yes, good idea to take a pause for feedback, but maybe don't
   need formal structure

   Michael: Want to see this on a standards track
   ... so don't want it in an informal group

   Debbie: Interest group is a formal W3C structure, but agree not a
   standards track

   Dan: OK with Bjorn's idea as long as we don't creat a spec

   MIchael: Feedback is different that standarizing

   Bjorn: Let's keep XG, and its main purpose should be to collect

   Michael: Do not want to move discussion outside W3C

   Bjorn: Would like to include WhatWG

   Michael: Want to start a new WG for that

   Dan: WhatWG doesn't include all browser vendors

   Bjorn: We can separate topics of feedback of spec building

   Michael: Fine as long as discussion doesn't build specs

   Dan: WebRTC and its own WG. List is monitored by WhatWG
   ... interesting WhatWG discussion is brought to the attention of the
   ... and the Google chair of the group has support of Hixie
   ... this is a working process
   ... so how is our group different?

   <smaug> Hmm, is it possible that Apple doesn't participate this work
   because of IP issues ? If that is the case, this work couldn't go to

   Satish: Perhaps because our group doesn't touch because of

   Dan: Charter of working group forces this class of discussion by all
   major browser vendors

   Bjorn: Most important thing is wide feedback

   MichaelJ: Can run into problems with focusing too much on feedback,
   because bogs progress
   ... but W3C does require addressing feedback as approach last call

   MichaelB: External discussion is fine, but spec work must take place
   in W3C

   Dan: Dicussion is fine, but decisions need to be made in SDL
   ... SDO
   ... For example VoiceXML forum and VBWG

   Bjorn: Need commitment to listen to external feedback

   Michael: That's already part of W3C

   Dan: Must address every public comment
   ... tracked and recorded
   ... disagreements are escalated

   Michael: As long as comments are sent to the W3C

   Bjorn: Google would like to think about this more internally
   ... can we discuss on mailing list?

   Dan: We are almost out of time
   ... may need to schedule an emergency call
   ... recommend contacting Harold A from WebRTC

   Michael: Please also proof the draft

   Glen: Schedule call for December 1st.
   ... or at least reserve it

   MichaelJ: Correction to minutes
   ... comment was that we shouldn't worry about not addressing
   feedback within W3C. Safety checks are in place.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 01:47:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:51 UTC