- From: Satish S <satish@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:26:38 +0000
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHZf7RkAVxQVA-Pg-ny8byAVDiMbKkjj_W74CiO+NtEYxBRaTg@mail.gmail.com>
(Sorry if reply got posted twice, my mail app messed up formatting the first time) Milan, It looks like we agree on several things: * That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the WebApps' charter. * That we believe the wire protocol is best suited for another organization, such as IETF. * That we believe the markup bindings may be excluded. Our only difference seems to be whether to start with the extensive Javascript API proposed in [1] or the simplified subset of it proposed in [2], which supports the majority of use cases in the XG’s Final Report. Art Barstow asked for “a relatively specific proposal” and provided some precedence examples regarding the level of detail. [3] Olli Pettay wrote in [4] “Since from practical point of view the API+protocol XG defined is a huge thing to implement at once, it makes sense to implement it in pieces.” Starting with a baseline that supports the majority of use cases will accelerate implementation, interoperability testing, standardization and ultimately developer adoption. Cheers Satish [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-1696/speechapi.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1474.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0068.html On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com>wrote: > I've made the point a few times now, and would appreciate a response. > Why are we preferring to seed WebApps speech with [2] when we already > have [3] that represents industry consensus as of a month ago (Google > not withstanding)? Proceeding with [2] would almost surely delay the > resulting specification as functionality would patched and haggled over > to meet consensus. > > My counter proposal is to open the HTML/speech marriage in WebApps > essentially where we left off at [3]. The only variants being: 1) > Dropping the markup bindings in sections 7.1.2/7.1.3 because its primary > supporter has since expressed non-interest, and 2) Spin the protocol > specification in 7.2 out to the IETF. If I need to formalize all of > this in a document, please let me know. > > Thank you > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:31 AM > To: public-webapps > Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > Subject: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19 > > Glen Shires and some others at Google proposed [1] that WebApps add > Speech API to WebApps' charter and they put forward the Speech > Javascript API Specification [2] as as a starting point. Members of > Mozilla and Nuance have voiced various levels of support for this > proposal. As such, this is a Call for Consensus to add Speech API to > WebApps' charter. > > Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and silence > will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The deadline for > comments is January 19 and all comments should be sent to public-webapps > at w3.org. > > -AB > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/1696.html > [2] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-1696/s > peechapi.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-1696/speechapi.html> > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 22:27:16 UTC