W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: [pls] Invitation letter for WAI/I18N/MMI people interested on Pronunciation Lexicon spec

From: Pawson, David <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:35:25 -0000
Message-ID: <47DFC5E9D8B9E4429C2861946386EA9901E9B635@pbrmsx01.ads.rnib.org.uk>
To: <www-voice@w3.org>
CC: <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "Baggia Paolo" <Paolo.Baggia@LOQUENDO.COM>

Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/lexicon-reqs/

Dave Pawson, AC, RNIB.

id #whydo.  No definition of platform independence. Is this mean as
  implementation or application independent?

Section 1 list.  
Item 6. Unclear as to how to interpret? Does this cover authoring?
E.g. the need for an easy to use Unicode editor.

2.2 Where is 'embedded' defined. Apparent conflict with 2.1 without a
  definition.

Re Lexicon selection. Is that out of scope? E.g. to use existing SSML
lexicon selection.

3.2 Unclear. Is a lexicon a group of entries or a file of groups or a
  file of entries?

3.3 Is IPA required or simply there as an example? Requires
  clarification. See also 6.1.

3.4 Suggest add using xml:lang syntax as per XML rec.

3.5 Suggest add using xml:lang syntax as per XML rec.

4.3 Does a 'unicode sequence variation' cover using diacritical
  characters vs single character alternative representations, e.g. for
  U+00FC.

5.2 How will the application select which pronunciation to use...  I
    see. Perhaps 5.4 could be moved closer to this one, or combined?

5.3 I think that is en-scouse :-) See rfc 3066.
    (Don't want to upset the Liverpool people)

5.4 Combine with | move adjacent to 5.2?

5.5 *if* used in SSML, conflict resolution strategy needed, to resolve
  conflicts between this and 5.4?

6.3 Clarify please, Is the requirement only for word and|or syllable,
  or is that an example only?

6.4 Define platform please.

6.5 Wording to avoid conflict with 6.1. Perhaps, "in addition to the
  standard pronunication alphabet"

7.1 There are no document+fragid schemas in the requirement. Perhaps
  XPATH 2.0 would be helpful here?

7.2 I can see a huge advantage for users (authors) in terms of ease of
  use from trying to include morphological variants. I'd like to see
  this as a should, even if it is clearly stated that this is a first
  attempt to gain experience?

regards DaveP

-- 
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, 24 February 2005 10:36:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:49:00 GMT