- From: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:55:27 +0100
- To: Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org>
- Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
I thought the emma:literal element should always be a child of an emma:interpretation element? On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org> wrote: > 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 13:56:14 UTC