- From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:24:25 +0100
- To: Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Cc: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
Yeah, that would be my preference too. On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote: > If there isn't an interpretation I think it would make the most sense for the attribute to contain the literal string result. I believe this is what happens in VoiceXML. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> For the interpretation attribute, the spec draft currently says: >> >> "The interpretation represents the semantic meaning from what the user >> said. This might be determined, for instance, through the SISR >> specification of semantics in a grammar." >> >> My question is: for implementations that cannot provide an >> interpretation, what should the attribute's value be? null? undefined? >> >> Thanks, >> Hans >> >> > -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 13:24:53 UTC