- From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:04:46 +0100
- To: Satish S <satish@google.com>
- Cc: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "Raj (Openstream)" <raj@openstream.com>, Deborah Dahl <dahl@conversational-technologies.com>, Glen Shires <gshires@google.com>, "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote: >> Support for EMMA (FPR-4) was the second-most demanded feature of such an >> API, yet this group has been haggling since inception on whether we need >> such a feature at all. It would be one thing if the arguments were part of >> a grass roots movement across the industry, but they are not. The opponents >> are almost unanimously aligned under the Google flag which holds both the >> chair and editor positions. This doesn't feel like a community. > > > Looking back at the mailing list archives, it is clear that most of the > questions about EMMA usage were raised by me and I am neither a chair nor an > editor. Adding more chairs to the CG isn't going to change this. To their > credit both Glen and Hans have been trying find a common language among all > the discussions. > > Also note that all of my proposals and questions come from my web developer > background and such perspectives are something the group will get a lot when > taking the API proposal to the standards track. > > What we clearly need is to get more web developers and UA vendors > participate, not more chairs or editors. +1 -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 10:14:31 UTC