Re: Speech API Community Group

As one further clarification:  Genesys (= me) will commit to providing 
the editorial work and test cases for the specification of  remote 
resources as part of this effort.

- Jim Barnett

On 4/3/2012 2:59 PM, Young, Milan wrote:
>
> It matters to the application author that they can select a service 
> that works best for them.  Relying on browser or OS configurations 
> would not suffice for real-world speech applications.
>
> I don't see how we can properly specify the process of selection 
> without the mention of network services.  Hence the language request.
>
> *From:*Jerry Carter [mailto:jerry@jerrycarter.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:46 AM
> *To:* Young, Milan
> *Cc:* Glen Shires; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org; public-webapps@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Speech API Community Group
>
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Young, Milan wrote:
>
>
>
> The proposal mentions that the specification of a network speech 
> protocol is out of scope. This makes sense given that protocols are 
> the domain of the IETF.
>
> But I'd like to confirm that the use of network speech services are in 
> scope for this CG.  Would you mind amending the proposal to make this 
> explicit?
>
> I don't see why any such declaration is necessary.  From the 
> perspective of the application author or of the application user, it 
> matters very little where the speech-to-text operation occurs so long 
> as the result is delivered promptly.  There is no reason that local, 
> network-based, or hybrid solutions would be unable to provide adequate 
> performance.  I believe the current language in the proposal is 
> appropriate.
>
> -=- Jerry
>