Re: Propose errata for emma attribute

On 01/20/2013 05:32 AM, Glen Shires wrote:
> We've found that generating a "simple" XML/DOM wrapper of the results for the SpeechRecognitionEvent emma attribute is more challenging to implement
> than originally thought. I propose that the UA may return undefined for implementations in which the speech recognition engine does not supply emma.
>   In this case, emma doesn't provide any additional information than is already available via the API in the results attribute.
>
> Specifically, I propose adding the phrase: ", or if the recognizer does not supply EMMA then the user agent may return undefined."


I think returning null would make more sense and be compatible with XHR. Though I'm not a fan of sort-of-optional features. Could we even drop the 
property from v1? But, I'm not against having .emma just returning null for now.


Also, it would be nice if we had JSON syntax for EMMA. Accessing JS object tree would be more natural than DOM tree.
This was discussed during XG, but don't recall if MMI WG was asked to think about JSON version of EMMA.

-Olli

>
> Here it is in context [1] ...
>
> emma attribute
> EMMA 1.0 representation of this result. [EMMA] The contents of this result could vary across user agents and recognition engines, but all
> implementations must expose a valid XML document complete with EMMA namespace, or if the recognizer does not supply EMMA then the user agent may
> return undefined. User agent implementations for recognizers that supply EMMA must contain all annotations and content generated by the recognition
> resources utilized for recognition, except where infeasible due to conflicting attributes. The user agent may add additional annotations to provide a
> richer result for the developer.
>
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html#dfn-emma

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 18:40:12 UTC