- From: Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:27:07 -0400
- To: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Cc: Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
In the context of EMMA, this would have an emma:literal annotation without a corresponding interpretation. On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Bjorn Bringert wrote: > 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 13:27:31 UTC