Re: Split TTS and Speech Recognition?

Speaking from my vantage position, I find both the arguments 
plausible, recognizing that more work
needs to be done before the current artifacts become SPECs.

To GLEN's point, implementors can still implement part of the SPEC ( 
and it could be just TTS)..
and yes, there are plenty of use-cases ( again for a web developer) 
for just using TTS in the apps.

It's not clear to me, how and why keeping them in "SYNCH" would be a 
better thing to do..( aside
from the convenience of reading one spec as opposed to two)...and at 
the same time, not sure how
splitting them into two, would make it more attractive/likely for any 
other group to absorb...

IMHO, implementors can take any portion of any spec and conform to the 
extent of their capability and desire...
and so can WGs..

But, yes, it'll continue to be frustrating that we have so many 
"SPECs" that are not standards from a developers'/implementors'
point of view.

Raj

On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 05:25:10 +0200
  Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Glen–
> 
> I'm not trying to be pesky about this, and I'm not going to get 
>pushy. But I'd like you to reconsider this, and I'd like to hear from 
>others what they think (especially implementers).
> 
> 
> On 10/8/13 8:40 PM, Glen Shires wrote:
>> A unified spec hasn't slowed implementations, as there are currently
>> browsers that implement the ASR portion and not the TTS portion, and
>> browsers that implement the TTS portion and not the ASR portion.
> 
> This would seem to be an argument for splitting them up, not keeping 
>them together. They are moving at different rates.
> 
> 
>> (And speech aside, there are many examples where implementors
>> implement a spec in parts.)
> 
> Yes, but this is not good for web developers. It's to be avoided, if 
>possible. With my web developer hat on, this is really frustrating. 
>This is why CSS took a more modular approach, which is working pretty 
>well in terms of consistency and interoperability.
> 
> 
>> Also, keeping TTS and ASR together avoids the problem of having to 
>>sync
>> things up in the future.
> 
> Speaking from a position of ignorance and curiosity, what things 
>need to be synced up between TTS and ASR? They seem pretty orthogonal 
>from my reading of the spec.
> 
> 
>> As the unified spec matures, it may have a
>> better chance of finding a unified home in one of the major W3C 
>>groups,
>> such as HTML.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there. Why would a single spec 
>have a better chance of being adopted by a WG than 2 smaller specs?
> 
> 
> Is there some concern that one would get implemented, and not the 
>other, so keeping them together might incent implementers to do both?
> 
> 
>Finally, I just want to be clear that this request is not me speaking 
>with my W3C hat on; I'm speaking solely as an interested web 
>developer who wants his apps to work in as many browsers as possible, 
>and who's mostly using the TTS stuff.
> 
> Regards-
> -Doug
> 
> 
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
>> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi, folks–
>>
>>     I'd like to propose that the text-to-speech feature be split out
>>     from the Web Speech API spec; it's more or less orthogonal with 
>>the
>>     speech recognition aspect of the spec, and while there are still
>>     open issues that are being discussed, I think it's more stable 
>>in
>>     terms of implementations, and could move forward more quickly on 
>>its
>>     own.
>>
>>     I have been using both TTS and speech recognition in some of my
>>     recent apps, and I think both are very cool and useful; I think 
>>both
>>     will be great for accessibility, as well. TTS is much simpler,
>>     though, and I think we could get more implementations right away 
>>if
>>     we split it out. I really want to see both succeed, at their own 
>>pace.
>>
>>     (As an aside, I made a "talking calculator" back in 2004 using 
>>SVG
>>     and the Microsoft IE TTS API; it no longer works, but it hints 
>>to me
>>     that it wouldn't be too hard for Microsoft to implement the more
>>     modern TTS functionality in IE, if the path ahead were clear for 
>>them.)
>>
>>     In light of the recent news that the W3C Web Speech WG is not 
>>going
>>     to be formed [1], I think the work should still be done in the 
>>Web
>>     Speech Community Group, though maybe when it's mature enough, it
>>     could move to an existing W3C WG to become a Recommendation.
>>
>>     (I don't have a strong feeling about which group this might fit 
>>in,
>>     but a few spring to mind: the WebApps WG, the Audio WG, or the 
>>HTML
>>     WG to take advantage of the new CC-BY licensing being 
>>experimented
>>     on there. It could even be its own WG, though that seems like
>>     overkill to me.)
>>
>>     If any of this resonates with this group, I'm happy to help with 
>>it
>>     unofficially, with my W3C staff experience. (If it were 
>>ultimately
>>     moved into the Audio WG, then I could give my official help, 
>>since
>>     that's one of my working groups. :P)
>>
>>     [1]
>>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-new-work/__2013Oct/0004.html
>>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Oct/0004.html>
>>
>>     Regards-
>>     -Doug
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

--
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  
THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 
Reply to : legal@openstream.com

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 11:38:15 UTC