RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

How prioritization works in practice depends on how a specific Working Group
decides to organize its work, but generally, the W3C is very
consensus-oriented and tries to make sure that all opinions are respected.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Bernard [mailto:dbernard@intellectiongroup.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:39 PM
> To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> 
> Deborah-
> 
> So how would a good "democratic" prioritization work, in practice? Is that
> something that is rare/common in similar W3C endeavors?
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:00 PM
> To: dbernard@intellectiongroup.com; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> 
> I agree that getting "good enough" out there sooner is an excellent goal,
> although in practice there's always a lot of room for disagreement about
> what's "good enough".
> There isn't a draft priority list now, although the XG final report does
> include prioritized requirements [1]. However, the requirements in the
list
> are just prioritized into very general classes, like "strong interest", so
> they only provide a general guide to possible priorities for the
> standardization work.
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-
> 20111206/#priorit
> ized
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Bernard [mailto:dbernard@intellectiongroup.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:14 AM
> > To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> >
> > Deborah-
> >
> > Is there a draft priority list in existence? I like the idea of
> > getting "good enough" out there sooner, especially as an implementer
> > with real projects in the space.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:43 AM
> > To: 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> >
> > Olli has a good point that it makes sense to implement the SpeechAPI
> > in pieces. That doesn't mean that the WebApps WG only has to look at
> > one proposal in deciding how to proceed with the work. Another option
> > would be to start off the Speech API work in the Web Apps group with
> > both proposals (the Google proposal and the SpeechXG report) and let
> > the editors
> prioritize
> > the order that the different aspects of the API are worked out and
> published
> > as specs.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > To: Young, Milan
> > > Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> > >
> > > Milan,
> > > It looks like we fundamentally 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 majority of the 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
> > > API+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.h
> > > tm l 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
> > > > .h
> > > > tml
> > > > [2]
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-
> > > 1696/s
> > > > peechapi.html
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 19:20:28 UTC