Re: CG for Speech JavaScript API

So, one of the biggest issues facing the web right now is the ones that
aren't seen by end users of web sites - they are seen by web developers who
have to wade through cryptic, often bizarre, frequently asymmetrical and
almost alway too concise or too verbose APIs. Proposal and spec authors
have the power to change this, and I understand it's hard to open your work
for others to pick apart, but think of it this way: if you came to work and
someone in the office had brought in new desks and computers without asking
you and just said "use this, because I said so and I know better", at the
very least, you'd be frustrated. There are too many examples of DOM APIs
that suck and not enough examples of ones that are great and easy to use.

Rick



On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>wrote:

> Hi Satish,
>
>
> On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:50:25 +0100, Satish S <satish@google.com> wrote:
>
>  Re the mail list, if we turn this around and look at it from the
>>> perspective of someone that is mostly interested in the CG and not
>>> WebApps, they would then receive close to an additional 2K emails
>>> per quarter.
>>>
>>
>>   I really don't think you want that so I recommend against using
>>> public-webapps.
>>>
>>
>> Speech API discussions could use a "[speech api]" prefix in the email
>> subject so that participants can filter emails based on that. I see this
>> style being used by File API and possibly others in the webapps mailing
>> list.
>>
>
> True, but those are deliverables of the Web Apps group. Which already has
> a number of deliverables, and a lot of mail traffic for work it has agreed
> to take on. We have already moved various kinds of work to other lists to
> reduce that traffic.
>
>
>  As Glen mentioned keeping discussions in the webapps mailing list
>> will provide visibility to a wider audience, with a balanced web-centric
>> view for new JavaScript APIs.
>>
>
> The wider audience are welcome to subscribe to a list for the group
> working on the API - but they may not want to. The fact that you add
> messages to people's inbox doesn't mean that they will read them, as we all
> know already. I do not think it is reasonable to use this list for the work
> given that it has not been accepted as a work item by the group.
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>    je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>