W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: SSML <break time="none"/>

From: Daniel Burnett <burnett@nuance.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:02:29 -0700
Message-ID: <ED834EE1FDD6C3468AB0F5569206E6E91AF2FF@MPB1EXCH02.nuance.com>
To: <Alex.Monaghan@aculab.com>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your review of the most recent specification draft.

We have Accepted this request (with changes).
Here's our response:

>>> We will be reintroducing the distinction between break strength
>>> and time as you suggest. The solution will also have the
>>> following characteristics: 
>>> 
>>> o It will be possible to have a break of strength="none" to ensure
>>>   that no break occurs.
>>> o When only the strength attribute is present, the break time will
>>>   be based on the processor's interpretation of the strength value.
>>> o When only the time attribute is present, other prosodic strength
>>>   indicators may change at the discretion of the processor.
>>> o When neither attribute is present, the element will increase the
>>>   break strength from its current value.

If you believe we have not adequately addressed your request,
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.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Dan Burnett
Synthesis Team Leader, VBWG

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex.Monaghan@aculab.com [mailto:Alex.Monaghan@aculab.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 1:59 AM
To: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: RE: SSML <break time="none"/>



dear hard-working SSML editors,
marc's comment has reminded me to raise a couple of problems with the new
definition of "break".

firstly, i think marc is quite right - <break time="none"> is now equivalent
to the absence of a break tag, which is pointless.
secondly, <break time="none"> SHOULD mean a prosodic break (end of
intonational phrase, boundary tone, or whatever) but no pause. we seem to
have lost the possibility of specifying the end of a multi-word prosodic
chunk which is not marked by a pause, e.g. one which is marked solely by
tonal and/or lengthening phenomena.
thirdly, we have lost the ability to uncouple the strength of the break
(between words, between phrases, between clauses, sentences, paragraphs,
etc.) from the duration of the associated pause. pausing is only one aspect
of prosodic breaks, yet it is now being treated as if it were the only one.
also, in many applications there is a requirement to interleave synthesis
with other audio: it can therefore be extremely useful to be able to specify
a weak break (between words) with a long pause, or a strong break (between
paragraphs) with a short pause. a couple of examples, in case this is not
clear:
a) in an educational text about rainforest animals, you might wish to insert
animal noises without interrupting the flow of the narration, as in "The
giant hairy anteater has a bloodcurdling scream (medium-strength break, long
pause for audio sample) but the roar of the okapi (very weak break, long
pause for audio sample) is even more terrifying."
b) in a dialogue between a perky cartoon character and a bookish computer
character, you might wish to have a paragraph read by the bookish character
but let the perky character start speaking immediately after, as in
"(bookish voice) ... and that is the reason why we know that the universe is
banana-shaped. (full end-of-paragraph break, but only a very short pause)
(perky voice) Yes, yes, all very interesting but can I eat the banana now?!"

in conclusion, please bring back the distinction between break strength and
associated pause time, so that they can be specified independently, and make
<break time="none". a default-strength break with no pause.

best wishes,
		alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Marc Schroeder [SMTP:schroed@dfki.de]
> Sent:	Tuesday, January 21, 2003 9:26 AM
> To:	www-voice@w3.org
> Subject:	SSML <break time="none"/>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is a minor comment regarding the SSML <break> element 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-speech-synthesis-20021202/#S2.2.3), more 
> specifically regarding the meaning of the attribute value "none" for the 
> time attribute.
> 
> The specification currently defines:
> 
> The value "none" indicates that a normal break boundary should be used.
> 
> 
> This currently seems to make "none" a synonym of "default". Much more 
> useful would be the possibility to explicitly forbid the occurrence of a 
> break where the default rules of a TTS system would (erroneously) place 
> one. I therefore suggest replacing the above sentence with:
> 
> The value "none" indicates that no break boundary should occur.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marc Schröder, TTS Researcher at DFKI, Germany
> Responsible for TTS development in the NECA project, 
> http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/NECA
> 
> -- 
> Marc Schröder, Researcher
> DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
> http://www.dfki.de/~schroed
> "If you are happy, you are functioning well."
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 20:11:57 GMT

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