Re: Propose errata for emma attribute

Yes, I was responding to your comment: "Could we even drop the property
from v1?" and proposing to remove the attribute altogether (thus
"undefined").

I agree, if instead its supported in some cases and not others, then it
should be "null" for the cases it's not supported.


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:

> On 01/23/2013 02:33 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
>
>> On 01/23/2013 01:42 AM, Glen Shires wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that JSON syntax may be more useful than a DOM tree. Since there
>>> is some uncertainty, I agree that dropping the attribute from the spec has
>>> merit.
>>>
>>> So I'd like to propose this as errata:
>>>
>>> emma attribute
>>> This attribute should return "undefined".
>>>
>> null
>> (I don't understand why it would return undefined)
>>
>>
>>
> Unless you actually mean the property isn't there at all if EMMA isn't
> supported?
>
>
>
>
>>  [Editor note: The group has discussed various options for the emma
>>> syntax, including XML/DOM and JSON syntax.]
>>>
>>>
>>> If that's not acceptable, then I'd be fine with having .emma return null
>>> in the case where the recognizer does not supply EMMA...
>>>
>>> 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 null. 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.
>>>
>>> If there's no disagreement, I'll update the errata on Feb 4.
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi<mailto:
>>> Olli.Pettay@helsinki.**fi <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     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<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-__api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.__html#dfn-emma>
>>>         <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**speech-api/raw-file/tip/**
>>> speechapi.html#dfn-emma<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/speechapi.html#dfn-emma>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>