- From: James P. Salsman <bovik@best.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:06:44 -0800 (PST)
- To: david@kasey.umkc.edu
- Cc: ietf@ietf.org, www-html@w3.org
David, Thanks for your message: > Given a microphone capturing application that can > capture a spoken phrase to a named file, the current > HTML file upload form element is sufficient to upload > that voice clip. That is absolutly right, and it captures the essense of why the W3C should take an affirmative stance to standardize microphone upload. Suppose you are developing a spoken language instruction system using asyncronous audio conferencing. If you wanted to provide for students on several different platforms, you would have to provide a microphone capture application for each of them. Then, when the participants used your system, they would have to record, save to a file, select that file, and upload it as seperate operations, switching between the browser and microphone capture application each time. If microphone upload were standardized, I estimate that it would save over ten mouse and key-clicks per upload, without having to distribute a supplemental application for each platform. > MIME e-mail can carry voice clips and comments between > teacher and student perfectly well. Only a few mail user agents provide that capability. Back in late 1996 some language instructors on one of the distance education lists (DEOS?) or newsgroups were claiming that voice-email presents more trouble than it is worth, at least for some students. > Streaming microphone data as something which would be part > of a standard... The device upload spec isn't for streaming, it uses only TCP-based HTTP POST enctype="multipart/form-data" HTML form submissions; see: http://www.bovik.org/device-upload.html Cheers, James
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2000 21:06:55 UTC