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

RE: SSML, further comments

From: <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:51:28 -0000
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F049E1FD2@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: burnett@nuance.com
Cc: www-voice@w3.org

Response accepted.

regards DaveP



    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 false.
    If you wish to say that modern tts systems are vastly 
    improved over engines of 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 system.
    
    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 
    

- 
DISCLAIMER: 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system. 

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by 
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such 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 Thursday, 20 November 2003 04:52:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:59 GMT