W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > April to June 2003

FW: SSML

From: Daniel Burnett <burnett@nuance.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:16:49 -0700
Message-ID: <ED834EE1FDD6C3468AB0F5569206E6E91AF18E@MPB1EXCH02.nuance.com>
To: <www-voice@w3.org>



-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Burnett 
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 4:06 PM
To: 'DPawson@rnib.org.uk'
Cc: 'www-voice-wg@w3.org'
Subject: RE: SSML


Dear Dave,

Thank you for your review of the SSML specification.  It's been two years,
but we thought it appropriate to send an official response as if you had
sent the comment today.

If you believe we have not adequately addressed your issues with our
responses, please let us know as soon as possible.  If we do not hear
from you within 14 days, we will take this as tacit acceptance.

We will respond to your other emails separately.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Dan Burnett
Synthesis Team Leader, VBWG

[VBWG responses are embedded, preceded by '>>>']

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of DPawson@rnib.org.uk
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 3:58 AM
> To: www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: SSML
> 
> 
> Sorry, two more features I would love to see for our process.
> 1. A command line application.
>   application  xml-file, output audio file.
>  (rather than being buried in some app  I haven't a clue about).
> ? Off topic I suppose  :-)

>>> Proposed disposition: Rejected
>>>
>>> This is out of scope for the language, although nothing prevents
>>> the use of an SSML processor to send its generated audio stream
>>> to a file.

> 
> 2. That the tts system be able to analyse a document and tell me
> that it has never heard of word xxxx, rather than creating a 40 minute
> recording, only to find that after 35 minutes,
> a word has to be added to its dictionary
> and the whole job done again. Thats a real bummer.
> 
> Even if it pulled them, pronounced each one so that we could
> check that it was a good guess/risible would help.
> 
> Or it pulled them, marked them up and exported them as XML
> for that level of checking!

>>> Proposed disposition: Rejected
>>>
>>> These suggestions are all for the processor and not the language.
>>> As such, they are out of scope.

> 
> Regards DaveP
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 19:17:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:58 GMT