- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:21:01 -0500
- To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
are at http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html.
A text version follows for your convenience:
Attendees
Present
Bjorn_Bringert, Dan_Burnett, Olli_Pettay, marc,
+1.732.507.aaaa, Milan_Young, Debbie_Dahl, Raj_Tumuluri,
+44.207.881.aabb, Satish_Sampath, [Microsoft]
Regrets
Chair
Dan Burnett
Scribe
Raj Tumuluri
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]minutes from last week's call
2. [6]Updated Requirements Document
3. [7]R14
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0015.html
4. [8]R25
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0014.html
5. [9]R24
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0018.html
6. [10]R10
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0017.html
7. [11]: R20
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0021.html
8. [12]R23
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0016.html
9. [13]R12
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0019.html
10. [14]R23
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0016.html
11. [15]R12
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0019.html
12. [16]UA/SS
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2
010Dec/0020.html
* [17]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<burn> trackbot, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2010
<smaug_> um, seems like my network connection is pretty bad today
<bringert> I am Bjorn_Bringert
<burn> Scribe: Raj Tumuluri
<burn> Scribenick: Raj
minutes from last week's call
Minutes Approved
Updated Requirements Document
No objections to the new requirements document
R14
([18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
015.html
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0015.html
Bjorn proposed rew-wording..are there any objections?
No Objections from the group
R25
([19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
014.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0014.html
There were some recommendation to the wording ....are there any
objections?
No objections from the group
R24
([20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
018.html
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0018.html
No objections recorded for the above requirement
Topic R2
([21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010De
c/0023.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0023.html
Proposal to replace R2 with two new requirements sent through emails
( last email on Monday)
1. Recogntion w/o specifying grammars should be possible
milan: Did we agree to specify language as part of grammar
Bjorn's wording: Should be possible to specify the language
completely independently of the grammar
<burn> bjorn: we already have a requirement to address this
<smaug_> FPR38.
Milan: I did not see that requirement in the document
<burn> milan: does not say "separately from the grammar"
<burn> bjorn: you're right
Milan: Are we using notes as reference or the formal Requirements as
the basis
Burn: You are right..the requirements document to be the basis, and
not the notes
Bjorn: Michael suggested that we use the text from the notes to
reword the requirements doc
<burn> milan and bjorn: we need text for the new requirements
2. App. should be able to specify lang for each recognition
Milan: My concern is that we are NOT capturing all our discussions
in the Req. Spec
Bjorn: we should not do this on the phone, but, let Michael
incorporate the notes into the spec
<burn> action for michael: add text for each new requirement
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - for
Burn: to send Michael action item to update the spec incorporating
the notes from minutes
<marc> ACTION: Michael to add text for each new requirement
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) -
Michael
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
username (eg. mbodell2, mjohnsto)
Michael is Michael Bodell
<marc> ACTION: mbodell2 to add text for each new requirement
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Add text for each new requirement [on
Michael Bodell - due 2010-12-09].
Burn: So, we do have agreement on the 2 new reqs for R2
R10
([24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
017.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0017.html
Burn: Few more emails came on this topic post my sending the summary
earlier today
... Implementations must support SSML
Agreed to drop R10
: R20
([25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
021.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0021.html
Bjorn: Selecting a voice can be done without SSMl
being a requirement
R23
([26]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
016.html
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0016.html
Marc: Is it possible to indicate preference of voices ( like take
female voice from among the available)
Bjorn: But you cannot specify a specific engine from a specific
vendor, is that correct?
Burn: We have a req. to use SSML but not SSML 1.1,
... SSML1.1 has many of the features for selection of language etc.
Bjorn: If there is no addtional burden, then requiring SSML1.1 seems
OK
... If there is no addtional burden, then requiring SSML1.1 seems OK
Burn: So, we can put it into the req. and deal with at the time of
priorization
Marc: May be we should delay decision on this..
<marc> Proposed wording:
Marc: letting author to specify the language..Marc to type the
wording
<marc> Web application authors should be able to specify the voice
with which some text is to be spoken.
burn: That wording is OK by me
<bringert> Web apps should be able to specify which voice is used
for TTS
Burn: Bjorn's text will replace the text for R20
... Team agreed
R12
([27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
019.html
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0019.html
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: oops
R23
([28]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
016.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0016.html
<burn> there seemed to be consensus to add "When speech input is
used to provide input to a web app, it should be possible for the
user to select alternative input methods."
I agree
scribe: there is group agreement on this.
<burn> for the next piece: Chan's last email was
[29]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Nov
/0207.html
[29] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Nov/0207.html
Burn: Burn: There is a second thread, initiated by Chan...since he
is not on the call today, we can defer the detailed discussion on
that..
... Chan has multiple threads...on this..so, we can just let this
happen through email rather than on the phone
Group has no objection with Dan Burnett's suggestion
R12
([30]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
019.html
[30] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0019.html
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: webapp developer should be able to specify
name-specific Language Model
Burn: We can discuss, but check with Robert, as he has some comments
on this
Dahl: The comment from Robert came just last night..and afraid many
did not have a chance to review it adequately
<ddahl> actually, the requirement was only sent to the list for
discussion last night
Burn: Let's not discuss MUST vs. SHOULD now,.but if there are any
other suggestions..we can discuss that..
... There is no standard for that right now..
Bjorn: If the standard becomes available in future, it may be
possible to specify this with URI
Burn: It seems that we have agreement on this among the people on
the call.....
... We will keep R12 as stated and confirm it on the mailing list
UA/SS
([31]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0
020.html
[31] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2010Dec/0020.html
<Milan> Transport layer security (e.g. HTTPS) if requested by the
web app.
UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: Milan to post the 3 requirements under this topic
Bjorn: We agreed on the priority level of req..
<smaug_> bringert: did you really said that ^^
Burn: There are many reqs.. that may be very relevant...
Bjorn: WebApp API and UA-2-SpeechAPI are two separate reqs.
... Correction on Bjorns' comment on priority level...Expunge from
minutes
... Core needed for any speech API and the other for WebApps..
Burn: Is there anything else that we need to cover today?
... suggest Bjorn correct the statements himself with the
appropriate wording..
<bringert> My position on grouping requirements: We should split the
requirements document in two sections: 1. Requirements needed for
any HTML Speech API, 2. Requirements only needed for web app
specified network speech services.
End Minutes
<bringert> What I said about priorities: There was a discussion of
the relative priorities of the core Web app - UA API, and the
network speech services API, and we didn't come to a conclusion.
<bringert> My position (as I've communicated on the mailing list) is
that the Web app API should be considered the core API, and the APIs
for specifying and communicating with network speech services should
be considered extensions of lower priority.
<burn> s/Next Topic:/Topic:/g
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: mbodell2 to add text for each new requirement
[recorded in
[32]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: Michael to add text for each new requirement [recorded
in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2010/12/02-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 22:21:36 UTC