- From: Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 20:38:42 +0000
- To: Satish S <satish@google.com>, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com>
- CC: "public-speech-api@w3.org" <public-speech-api@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B236B24082A4094A85003E8FFB8DDC3C1A45C8C9@SOM-EXCH04.nuance.com>
We can point to standards on both sides of the fence. Perhaps it is a better use of time to consider our particular use case. I'd argue that 90% of developers will not even think about the second item on the nbest list. So why complicate their mental model let alone syntax with SpeechRecogntionAlternatives? For the 10% that do understand an nbest list and its proper use, most will be familiar with VoiceXML which shares the same model. From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:02 AM To: Hans Wennborg Cc: Young, Milan; public-speech-api@w3.org Subject: Re: Revised SpeechRecognitionResult I'd prefer not having such shortcuts in the API. As a parallel, see the W3C File API's FileList interface http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#dfn-filelist To read the size of a file you'd have to do: var size = document.forms['uploadData']['fileChooser'].files[0].size; but that hasn't resulted in a shorter version like var size = document.forms['uploadData']['fileChooser'].size; If developers are accessing "item[0].utterance" more than once in their code they'd usually do var item = event.result.item[0]; .. = item.utterance Cheers Satish On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Hans Wennborg <hwennborg@google.com<mailto:hwennborg@google.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com<mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote: > > Hello Hans, > > > > It's not uncommon for recognition engines to return a guess at what the user said/meant even for a nomatch result. So we shouldn't rule this out in the API. > > Right. The spec currently says "nomatch event: [...] The result field > in the event may contain speech recognition results that are below the > confidence threshold or may be null." > > So that covers both cases. > > > As far as communicating this with a null vs event, I have a slight preference for an event. Two reasons: > > I'm not sure what you mean by "communication this with a null vs > event". I was talking about returning null or throwing an exception. > Is that what you mean? > > > * Easier for implementers. This is a true alias. > > I'm not sure what you mean by true alias. > > > * We may want to allow empty interpretations or utterances, and thus a null would be ambiguous. > > Ah, yes. So throwing an exception seems like the better option. > > Thanks, > Hans >
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 20:39:18 UTC