> > EMMA isn’t just about additional data from the recognizer. It’s a > serialized form of the recognition that’s useful for everything from > compatibility with an MMI architecture to logging. Deborah gave a few use > cases and I could probably add others.**** > > ** ** > > So while we agree that JS properties are more useful to the code that runs > inside the browser, we have to understand that isn’t the whole story. > Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. My proposal is that if EMMA data was sent by the recognizer (not just additional data but all encompassing as you mention) then it makes sense to pass it on to the web page in a DOM document form (emmaXML or just emma). If however the recognizer did not send back EMMA data then the UA can leave that field null. This satisfies the use cases that have been brought up so far and any future use case which will need EMMA, because I'm not advocating stripping out data from the received EMMA xml. Why is this a point of concern?
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:34:58 UTC