- From: Conversational <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:29:00 -0400
- To: Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
- Cc: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
I can't check the spec right now, but I assume there's already an attribute that currently is defined to contain the raw text. So I think we could say that if there's no interpretation the value of the interpretation attribute would be the same as the value of the "raw string" attribute, Sent from my iPhone On Aug 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote: > OK, that would work I suppose. > > What would the spec text look like? Something like "[...] If no > semantic meaning can be determined, the attribute will a string > representing the raw words that the user spoke."? > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com> 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. >>> >>>> My question is: for implementations that cannot provide an >>>> interpretation, what should the attribute's value be? null? undefined? >
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 16:29:26 UTC