- From: Diogo Resende <dresende@thinkdigital.pt>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 19:31:53 +0000
I was not thinking of raw access to the mic. I was just thinking of a 2 step method to do it so you could just do 1 step :) I was thinking of something like: 1. Call Sound API and ask to record (maybe something like the geolocation on Firefox [1]). 2. Pass it to text2speech or save or stream or whatever.. This way one could record audio and do something else like save/stream. If other want to translate into text, just do the next step. [1]: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/ -- Diogo Resende <dresende at thinkdigital.pt> ThinkDigital On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 12:30 -0500, Fergus Henderson wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Diogo Resende > <dresende at thinkdigital.pt> wrote: > I agree 100%. Still, I think the access to the mic and the > speech > recognition could be separated. > > While it would be possible to separate access to the microphone and > speech recognition, combining them allows the API to abstract away > details of the implementation that would otherwise have to be exposed, > in particular the audio encoding(s) used, and whether the audio is > streamed to the recognizer or sent in a single chunk. If we don't > provide general access to the microphone, the speech recognition API > can be simpler, implementors will have more flexibility, and > implementations can be simpler and smaller because they won't have to > deal with conversions between different audio encodings. > > So I'm in favour of not separating out access to the microphone, at > least in v1 of the API. > > -- > Fergus Henderson <fergus at google.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091203/5b351073/attachment.pgp>
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 11:31:53 UTC