W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: mark's and richard's comments on SSML

From: <Alex.Monaghan@Aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:31:38 -0000
Message-ID: <0AEF0EB21F09D211AE4E0080C82733BF01799C4B@mailhost.aculab.com>
To: www-voice@w3.org
i know i was only taking one possible interpretation of what richard wrote,
but it certainly seems as though the SSML spec will not be satisfied by most
curent synthesisers if the requirement for appropriate output is part of the
definition of compliance.

in other words, either the goal of cross-platform consistency is sacrificed
or the goal of implementation using current technology is abandoned.

richard appears to attach more importance to cross-platform consistency, as
do i - what's the point of having a mark-up standard if the results
(synthesiser outputs) are not standardised? it would be analogous to having
a standard for fuel which stated that you had to be able to pour into into a
fuel tank, but said nothing about what happened after that.

so how will compliance be assessed?
					alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Richard Sproat [SMTP:rws@research.att.com]
> Sent:	22 January 2001 13:22
> To:	Alex.Monaghan@Aculab.com; www-voice@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: mark's and richard's comments on SSML
> 
> 
> Alex:
> 
>   Richard: "in the current situation what you have is a
>   system that will not necessarily be able to implement what you want to
>   hear."
> 
> Here I'm describing the situation that one is likely to have with
> certain classes of synthesizers. I am not claiming that this would
> constitute an acceptable notion of compliance. Quite the opposite: I
> think the situation is perfectly unacceptable. I had thought that was
> clear, but maybe I should have spelled this out explicitly.
> 
> --R
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 08:31:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:53 GMT