RE: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

I agree that Document would be more useful. 

 

From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:18 AM
To: Hans Wennborg
Cc: olli@pettay.fi; Young, Milan; 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)

 

Yes that is correct, it should be

  readonly attribute Document emma;


Cheers
Satish



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
> In any case, looks like there is enough interest both from speech &
browser
> vendors to have this attribute always non-null. So I'm fine making it so.
I
> like the first proposal from Milan:
> ----
> Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)
>
>  readonly attribute DOMString emma;
>
> And the corresponding addition to 5.1.6:
>  emma - A string representation of the XML-based <link>EMMA 1.0</link>
> result. (link points to http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/
> ----
>
> This spec proposal shouldn't mandate specific fields any more than what
EMMA
> does already so that web apps can point to existing recognizers and get
EMMA
> data in the same format as they would get otherwise.

Earlier in the thread, I thought we decided that it was better to make
the emma attribute be of type Document rather than DOMString?