- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:11:09 -0400
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: <jim@larson-tech.com>, <ashimura@w3.org>, <scott.mcglashan@hp.com>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
s/inline failure/onlangfailure/ On May 7, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Richard Ishida wrote: > My notes from the FTF meeting in Beijing: > > It is intentional that all items must match. Note that xml:lang is > not > related to voice. > Failure is handled by voice and inline failure sections. > More text will be added to clarify, an example, and links to other > sections. > > RI > > ============ > Richard Ishida > Internationalization Lead > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > http://rishida.net/blog/ > http://rishida.net/ > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of ishida@w3.org >> Sent: 07 April 2008 16:21 >> To: dburnett@voxeo.com; jim@larson-tech.com; ashimura@w3.org; >> scott.mcglashan@hp.com; public-i18n-core@w3.org >> Subject: [SSML11] i18n comment 1: Language priority list? >> >> >> Comment from the i18n review of: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-speech-synthesis11-20080317// >> >> Comment 1 >> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0804-ssml11/Overview.html >> Editorial/substantive: E/S >> Tracked by: RI >> >> Location in reviewed document: >> 3.2.1 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-speech-synthesis11-20080317/ >> #S3.2.1] >> >> Comment: >> No mention is made of the concept of a 'language priority list' >> per RFC > 4647. We >> suspect that this is an oversight, since we expect that a >> processor needs > to choose >> one item from the list that best fits, and will need some help in >> making > that >> choice. >> >> >> Furthermore, the text says "A voice satisfies the languages >> feature if, > for each >> language/accent pair in the list...". We suspect that that should >> read > 'if, for one or >> more language/accent pairs in the list...' The word 'each' implies >> that > all items in >> the list must match. >> >> >> If we are mistaken here, please make it clearer in the spec why this > approach is >> used. >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 19:11:59 UTC