W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Speech API Community Group

From: Jim <Jim@haynes-barnett.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:15:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4F7C81B0.6090007@haynes-barnett.net>
To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
This is a reasonable response.  I'm satisfied with it and eager to start 
work.  I agree that we won't have a perfect solution to resource 
selection, security and privacy in the early iterations.  We'll have to 
decide collectively what's good enough.  (And to repeat my previous 
offer, I'll volunteer to be editor for these topics.)

- Jim Barnett
P.S.  How do we propose to work?  Will it be email-only or will we have 
calls and face to face meetings?

On 4/4/2012 12:01 PM, Glen Shires wrote:
> One of the key goals of this Speech API CG is to expedite the 
> implementation of speech in browsers. As Olli outlined [1], web APIs 
> tend to evolve, beginning with a first iteration specification and 
> adding additional features later.
>
> I believe that a web-author-facing JavaScript API for specifying 
> network speech services (FPR7 and FPR12) are within the scope of this 
> CG, and can be included in the first iteration of this specification, 
> so long as they do not delay completing it. For example, a serviceUri 
> [2] method can provide a JavaScript API for specifying such resources. 
> Parameters in that Uri string could be used for resource selection.
>
> As Jerry wrote [3] the challenge is "to define what characteristics 
> may be specified for resource selection or, alternatively, to 
> determine that such definition is external to the immediate API: for 
> instance, there might be a separate spec which is referenced by the 
> Speech JavaScript API."  In any case, a comprehensive solution, 
> including security and privacy, is complex, so this CG should
> start with a realistic goal for the first specification and iterate in 
> future specifications.
>
> /Glen Shires
>
> FPR7. Web apps should be able to request speech service different from 
> default.
> FPR12. Speech services that can be specified by web apps must include 
> network speech services.
>
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2012Jan/0009.html
> [2] 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/#dfn-uri
> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2012Apr/0008.html
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com 
> <mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
>
>     The problem is that the community group has an ambiguous
>     “charter”, and at least some folks would like this clarified
>     before joining.  Being that Speech-XG and Webapps are the two most
>     relevant lists, I don’t know where else the discussion would take
>     place.
>
>     I believe that all of this could be cleared up by a simple
>     statement from the CG chair (Glen Shires) that FPR7 and FPR12 are
>     in scope.  There is “STRONG” interest in this domain and an editor
>     has already volunteered (Jim Barnett).  Seems like a simple decision.
>
>     Thanks
>
>     *From:*Charles Pritchard [mailto:chuck@jumis.com
>     <mailto:chuck@jumis.com>]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 1:29 PM
>     *To:* Michael Bodell
>     *Cc:* Jerry Carter; Raj (Openstream); Young, Milan; Jim; Glen
>     Shires; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>; public-webapps@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>
>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: Speech API Community Group
>
>     I'd like to encourage everyone interested in the Speech API to
>     join the mailing list:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-speech-api/
>
>     For those interested in more hands-on interaction, there's the CG:
>     http://www.w3.org/community/speech-api/
>
>     For some archived mailing list discussion, browse the old XG list:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/
>
>     It seems like we can move this chatter over to public-speech-api
>     and off of the webapps list.
>
>     -Charles
>
>
>     On 4/3/2012 1:08 PM, Michael Bodell wrote:
>
>     A little bit of historical context and resource references might
>     be helpful for some on the email thread.
>
>     While this is still an early stage for a community group, if one
>     will happen, it actually isn’t early for the community as a group
>     to talk about this.  In many ways we’ve already done the initial
>     incubation and community discussion and investigation for this
>     space in the HTML Speech XG.  This lead to the XG’s use case and
>     requirements document:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/live/requirements.html
>
>     which were then refined to a prioritized requirement list after
>     soliciting community input:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/#prioritized
>
>     As I read it, Milan and Jim and Raj’s requirements discussed are
>     part of FPR7 [Web apps should be able to request speech service
>     different from default] and FPR12 [Speech services that can be
>     specified by web apps must include network speech services], both
>     of which were voted to have “Strong Interest” by the community.
>
>     Further work from these requirements led to the community coming
>     up with a proposal, which is ready now to be taken to a standards
>     track process, that was published in the XG final report:
>
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-20111206/
>
>     Hopefully we can all properly leverage the work the community has
>     already done.
>
>     Michael Bodell
>
>     Co-chair HTML Speech XG
>
>     *From:*Jerry Carter [mailto:jerry@jerrycarter.org]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2012 12:50 PM
>     *To:* Raj (Openstream); Milan Young; Jim
>     *Cc:* Glen Shires; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>; public-webapps@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-webapps@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: Speech API Community Group
>
>     We can discuss this in terms of generalities without any
>     resolution, so let me offer two more concrete use cases:
>
>         My friend Jóse is working on a personal site to track teams
>         and player statistics at the Brazil 2014 World Cup.  He
>         recognizes that the browser will define a default language
>         through the HTTP Accept-Language header, but knows that
>         speakers may code switch in their requests (e.g. Spanish +
>         English or Portuguese + English or ) or be better served by
>         using native pronunciations (Jesus = /heːzus/ vs. /ˈdʒiːzəs/).
>          Hence, he requires a resource that can provide support for
>         Spanish, English, and Portuguese and that can also support
>         multiple simultaneous languages.
>
>     These are two solid requirements.  A browser encountering the page
>     might (1) be able to satisfy these requirements, (2) require user
>     permission before accessing such a resource, or (3) be unable to
>     meet the request.
>
>         My colleague Jim has another application for which hundreds of
>         hours have been invested to optimize the performance for a
>         specify recognition resource.  Security considerations further
>         restrict the physical location of conforming resources.  His
>         page requires a very specific resource.
>
>     These are two solid requirements.  A browser encountering the page
>     might (1) be able to satisfy these requirements, (2) require user
>     permission before accessing such a resource, or (3) be unable to
>     meet the request.
>
>     There are indeed commercial requirements around the capabilities
>     of resources.  We are in full agreement.  It is important to be
>     able to list requirements for conforming resources and to ensure
>     that the browser is enforcing those requirements.  That stated,
>     the application author does no care where such a conforming
>     resource resides so long as it is available to the targeted user
>     population.  The user does not care where the resource resides so
>     long as it works well and does not cost too much to use.
>
>     The trick within a Speech JavaScript API is to define what
>     characteristics may be specified for resource selection or,
>     alternatively, to determine that such definition is external to
>     the immediate API: for instance,  there might be a separate spec
>     which is referenced by the Speech JavaScript API.  It is too early
>     to tell what direction the group might go.  It is already clear
>     that there are strong opinions as to what criteria may be
>     necessary for resource selection. *Refusing to participate unless
>     one's specific criteria are addressed strikes me as quite
>     inappropriate at this early stage.*
>
>     -=- Jerry
>
>     On Apr 3, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Raj (Openstream) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>     Perhaps true for users of the applicaitons. But, Authors would
>     need Resource-specification(location),
>     hence clearly specifying how network/local services can be used (
>     even if protocols are out of scope)
>     , outside of browser-defaults will be of interest to many
>     including Openstream.
>
>     Raj
>
>
>
>     On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:45:45 -0400
>     Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org
>     <mailto:jerry@jerrycarter.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     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
>
>
>     --
>     NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED
>     RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION
>     PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY
>     REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS
>     E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF
>     THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM
>     YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Reply to :
>     legal@openstream.com <mailto:legal@openstream.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks!
> Glen Shires
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:16:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:16:18 GMT