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

I agree that other groups should be notified of our use cases.  We can shortcut that process by going directly to the authors (like Deborah), but I also think it will be a natural byproduct of this group publishing our own recommendation.

In the meantime, would you be satisfied if I modified my second proposal to put in SHOULD wording around the UA's support of the EMMA attributes?

Thanks


From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Young, Milan
Cc: Hans Wennborg; Deborah Dahl; olli@pettay.fi; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org
Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

If there are EMMA attributes that are mandatory for specific use cases, we should post to the MMI WG and get those changes into the EMMA recommendation published at http://www.w3.org/TR/emma/. I'm sure they will be interested in incorporating them and Deborah Dahl can help as well since she is one of the authors.

Cheers
Satish

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote:
Hello Hans,

I did respond to this thread, but it got forked.  The upshot is that we should go with my second (most recent) proposal, not my first proposal (that Satish supported).  The reason is that the first proposal did not allow us to achieve the interoperability use cases that Deborah put forward.

To addresses Satish's most recent argument, the likely hood of an application failing because the EMMA result contains an extra couple attributes is small.  This is because 1) most EMMA implementations support these attributes already, 2) we're dealing with XML which abstracts low-level parsing, 3) If an application did fail, the fix would be trivial.

Thanks


-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennborg@google.com<mailto:hwennborg@google.com>]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 2:56 AM
To: Deborah Dahl
Cc: Satish S; olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; Young, Milan; Bjorn Bringert; Glen Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto:public-speech-api@w3.org>
Subject: Re: EMMA in Speech API (was RE: Speech API: first editor's draft posted)

Do we have agreement on this? If there are no objections, I'll update the spec with the text Satish posted on the 8th (with DOMString substituted with Document):

----
Addition to SpeechRecognitionResult (section 5.1)

 readonly attribute Document 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/
----

Thanks,
Hans

On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com<mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com>> wrote:
> I agree that Document would be more useful.
>
>
>
> From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com<mailto:satish@google.com>]
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 5:18 AM
> To: Hans Wennborg
> Cc: olli@pettay.fi<mailto:olli@pettay.fi>; Young, Milan; Deborah Dahl; Bjorn Bringert; Glen
> Shires; public-speech-api@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:hwennborg@google.com>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com<mailto: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?