W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: SSML, further comments

From: Daniel Burnett <burnett@nuance.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:05:26 -0800
Message-ID: <ED834EE1FDD6C3468AB0F5569206E6E902732130@MPB1EXCH02.nuance.com>
To: <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
Cc: <www-voice@w3.org>

Dear Dave,

Thank you for your comments.

As discussed with you on the WAI-PF telecon of 17 September
(see http://www.w3.org/2003/09/17-pf-irc), here is our response to
your comments:

>>> We believe there is a misunderstanding that is simple to correct.
>>> There is already an ability in the specification to adjust
>>> pronunciation both internally via the phoneme element and
>>> externally via a lexicon.  We agree there are times when one needs
>>> a lexicon.  By placing better pronunciations for words in an
>>> external lexicon, the processor will automatically use the values
>>> in the lexicon over its own defaults without any additional markup
>>> (except for the single use of the <lexicon> element at the top of the
>>> document that points to the lexicon definition file).
>>> We also agree that the specification wording you quote unintentionally
>>> implies a claim about the quality of today's synthesis technology.
>>> To correct this, we will change "are expert at performing" to
>>> "are designed to perform".

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 7 days, we will take this as tacit acceptance.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Dan Burnett
Synthesis Team Leader, VBWG

-----Original Message-----
From: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk [mailto:David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:44 AM
To: Daniel Burnett
Cc: www-voice@w3.org
Subject: RE: SSML, further comments

Hi again Daniel.

> Thank you again for your careful review of the SSML 
> specification in 2001.
> Again, for completeness, we have prepared responses to your 
> requests from that
> time.
> 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. 
> After another read of the spec. Some more comments.
>  1.2, list item 4, para 3.
> "TTS systems are expert at performing text-topohoneme conversions
> so most words of most documents can be handled automatically".
>  Rather too sweeping for my liking. Certainly not the case for
> the systems I've seen :-)
> >>> Proposed disposition:  (none yet)
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you for your comment. Do you have a specific suggestion
> >>> for how to change this sentence?

I basically believe it to be a falsehood, judging by my own experience
of tts engines (and text-topohoneme should be text to phoneme).

I don't want W3C to be liable when a user of that spec determines it to be
If you wish to say that modern tts systems are vastly improved over engines
a few years ago, then that's relative, and true?

regards DaveP



NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk 
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:37 UTC