Satish, you are right that some of your arguments did not boil down to implementation. I'm sorry for the mischaracterization. From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 4:44 PM To: Young, Milan Cc: olli@pettay.fi; Hans Wennborg; Deborah Dahl; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted) Every argument that I've heard for discarding this feature boils down to implementation. Milan, that is a gross misunderstanding of the points I've been making in this thread. I mentioned duplicity of the same data across multiple attributes, ease of API use between XML and JS from a web developer's standpoint, asked for specific use cases and why they can't be addressed with the JS API and so on. It was you in fact who mentioned "a simple wrapper that can be implemented with a few lines of code." and talked about implementation rather than design principles of the API. Given that implementation is trivial, this sounds like an abuse of the community structure we are based on. If we do not have a resolution to add this feature by this weekend, I will escalate to the W3C staff. Again, this isn't about implementation but we were having a proper debate about the API design in this forum and validating each others' concerns. Please don't issue such threats in future, this is what undermines the community spirit.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 00:06:36 UTC