Re: Rename "TTS" object to "TextToSpeech"

Were there any arguments against the simpler: SpeechInput/SpeechOutput suggestion?


-Charles



On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com> wrote:

> To me, SpeechRecognition makes more sense because:
> 
> - It's an abstraction that may apply to multiple recognizers
> 
> - SpeechRecognition.continuous  and some other commands seem more natural/intuitive to me than  SpeechRecognizer.continuous
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> While I agree with Dominic's arguments, I doubt the subtle difference in semantics between recognition/recognizer or synthesis/synthesizer would be appreciated by developers.  My vote is for the original synthesizer/recognizer combo because the words pair well together.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Wennborg [mailto:hwennborg@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 10:08 AM
> To: Dominic Mazzoni
> Cc: public-speech-api@w3.org; Adam Sobieski; Glen Shires
> Subject: Re: Rename "TTS" object to "TextToSpeech"
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com> wrote:
> > How about SpeechRecognition and SpeechSynthesis instead of 
> > SpeechRecognizer and SpeechSynthesizer?
> >
> > The reason being that the APIs are really interfaces to control and
> > dispatch speech recognition and synthesis at a high level, the actual
> > recognizer and synthesizer are not necessarily local (though they
> > could be), they may be in a different process or on a remote server.
> 
> That's a good argument. I'm happy with SpeechRecognition and SpeechSynthesis if others agree.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hans
> 
>