Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-speech-1] CSS Speech 1 should not move to Rec until there are at least 2 implementation combinations of 2 combinations of "user agent + platform API + assistive technology" for every feature (#4871)

A brief heads up to everyone here. It seems that events starting with 
the CR notification on CSS Speech has caused some upset in the APA WG.

APA WG has a Pronunciation TF that is trying to solve the problem of how 
Text To Speech (TTS) handle the pronunciation of content. An important 
use case is the correct pronunciation of things like scientific terms, 
particularly in the educational context.

The TF has considered several existing technologies including CSS 
Speech, SSML, ARIA and others, as possible solutions. They have narrowed 
it down to two possibilities: SSML in the browser or an SSML attribute 
with similar capabilities.

The CR notification seems to have prompted concern that a specification 
APA believed to be dormant was surfacing again, and that somehow it 
represents a challenge to the work being done by the Pronunciation TF. I 
did my best to explain this wasn't the case and that CSS Speech should 
not have been published as a Note and that the re-publication as CR was 
intended to correct that course, but this led to questions about why it 
was going to CR when there were outstanding substantive issues raised 
against it.

Alan, it wouldn't surprise me if this gets raised by the W3 team at some 

I'm afraid my offer to co-edit, which I thought would be a positive 
thing, has also ruffled a few APA feathers it seems. What's the phrase - 
"No good deed goes unpunished"?

Anyway, I wanted to mention this because I suspect it's likely to 
surface in the following days/weeks and I didn't want any of you to be 
blind-sided like I was on the APA call today.

On 14/03/2020 03:38, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> Going to CR doesn't mean it's finished, it means the WG has answered all 
> the issues it could raise itself, asked for external feedback, and 
> addressed (not necessarily agreed with) all the feedback it got, and 
> thinks that it's as good as its going to get without getting additional 
> feedback, presumably although not necessarily derived from 
> implementation attempts. It seems to me that these conditions were met 
> at the time the resolution to update the CR was taken. (The fact that 
> there was a multi-year lag between taking that decision and doing the 
> publication blurs things quite a bit).
> I also think that looking at it now, it is also clear that there are 
> more new issues are being raised, that old issues are being made newly 
> relevant (for instance, due to largely giving up on media types, issues 
> that were rejected because they weren't relevant to the |speech| media 
> type should be reevaluated), that we as a community have learned more 
> about how all these things fit together, and that therefore there's a 
> bunch more things that should be addressed.
> If this spec had never been at CR before, and someone were to propose to 
> take it to CR now, I don't think it'd be appropriate. Given that it has 
> been a CR already (since 2012!), whether we should fix the issues and 
> update the CR, or take it back to Working Draft is an interesting 
> question, not fully answered by the Process itself.
> My take on it is that we should start by looking at the issues (and 
> filing more if appropriate). If it looks like some moderate number of 
> adjustments can resolve these issues, we should publish an updated CR 
> with these adjustments in place. If it looks like this is going to 
> require a fundamental redesign / rework of the whole thing, then it may 
> be more appropriate to signal that we're taking this back to the drawing 
> board by republishing at an earlier maturity (WD).
> Overall, I think technical discussions should take the priority over 
> process wrangling for now, and that we can look at how we should publish 
> things again a little while later.
> You have already filed a number of issues, and that's great. I think I 
> want to file a few more myself. In a little while, the extent of the 
> changes we want to do to the spec based on these issues will inform how 
> we want to republish it.
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub 
> <>, or 
> unsubscribe 
> <>.

Director @TetraLogical

GitHub Notification of comment by LJWatson
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2020 17:31:12 UTC