- From: Marc Schroeder <marc.schroeder@dfki.de>
- Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:22:30 +0100
- To: Robert Brown <Robert.Brown@microsoft.com>
- CC: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, Dave Burke <daveburke@google.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
I also agree that having just the API and not the protocol would be a dramatic limitation. Fine for me to be pragmatic about where the work is done -- if it is appropriate to formulate the protocol in the IETF rather than the W3C, so be it. What I think *is* important is that the same group of people (i.e., us) think through the requirements to both specs, or else they won't fit together properly. So I guess the appropriate way to proceed is for us to continue collecting the two sets of requirements (on the API, and on the protocol), and then to discuss / decide in which organisational structure those of us who want to see a protocol being defined are going to do that work. Cheers, Marc On 03.12.10 21:12, Robert Brown wrote: > (I’m struggling to come up with a funny quip about Dave wearing a chair > on his head, but haven’t succeeded yet… :P ) > > Dave has a good point. I’m not sure it’s a slam-dunk, but we should > discuss it. > > I pretty much agree with Milan. Browser-independence is critical and > protocol requirements of the type we’re discussing here are fundamental > to that. Furthermore, I **fundamentally** don’t believe very many (any?) > interesting and practical applications can be built without this, for > all the reasons previously discussed over the last month, in a number of > different requirements. > > In other words, I don’t think this XG has much practical value without > being backed by a reasonable protocol. I also believe we’re the best > group to identify the requirements for that protocol. Whether we include > the protocol specification in our charter, or have the same group of > people work with the IETF (and if so, when), is worth discussing. > > Personally, I think it’s more pragmatic that this group make a > recommendation based on our determination of requirements from the API > discussion, and then determine whether it needs to be taken further with > another group. > > *From:*public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Young, Milan > *Sent:* Friday, December 03, 2010 10:25 AM > *To:* Dave Burke > *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: UA <=> SS Protocol > > Hello Dave, > > I’m interested to hear from the other chairs and Robert from Microsoft > on this subject. But personally I could be convinced to proceed in the > direction you are suggesting. > > I would like agreement, however, that there will be a tight coupling > between the UA API specification and the protocol. Referencing the > WebSocket model, for example, the abstract at the top of the document > states: “This specification defines an API that enables Web pages to use > the WebSocket protocol for two-way communication with a remote host.” > > In the paragraph below we see similarly binding language: “This > specification is being developed in conjunction with an Internet Draft > for a wire protocol, the WebSocket Protocol…” > > I believe such a yin/yang relationship is necessary to achieve the > “browser-independent” experience suggested by our mission statement. > Concretely, when a specification is finally produced, no UA could call > itself conformant unless it implemented the required portions of both > specifications. > > Thanks > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*Dave Burke [mailto:daveburke@google.com] > *Sent:* Friday, December 03, 2010 5:19 AM > *To:* Young, Milan > *Cc:* public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: UA <=> SS Protocol > > <chair hat="on"> > > Within our XG, I think it's OK to suggest the existence of a protocol > and possibly even specify requirements for that protocol. But > defining/designing it neither fits into the purview of our charter nor > in fact that of the W3C. Protocols for the Web instead belong in the > IETF, and a possible route here is that one or more interested parties > create an individual-contributed Internet-Draft in that space. > > This is a well trodden path. For example, the WebSocket API is being > standardized by the W3C and the WebSocket protocol is being standardized > by the IETF. Similarly, for VoiceXML, a couple of like-minded W3C folks > got together and wrote RFC 5552 to define the SIP protocol/interface to > VoiceXML servers. > > </chair> > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com > <mailto:Milan.Young@nuance.com>> wrote: > > On the call today we agreed to split the protocol discussion from the > web API. This will both make it easier to read the document, and allow > folks to easily filter out discussions which are not relevant to them. > But both sets of requirements will continue to reside in the XG document > which Michael maintains. > > Before getting into the weeds of the protocol discussion, I’d like to > suggest deleting FPR30 which currently reads: “The communication between > the user agent and the speech server must require a mandatory-to-support > lowest common denominator such as HTTP 1.1, TBD.” > > I propose to replace this with a new requirement which will mark the > start of the new protocol section. The heading will read: “User agents > and speech services are required to support at least one common > protocol.” And the description that follows: “A common protocol will be > defined as part of the final recommendation. It will be built upon some > TBD existing application layer protocol such as HTTP.” > > Acceptable? > -- Dr. Marc Schröder, Senior Researcher at DFKI GmbH Coordinator EU FP7 Project SEMAINE http://www.semaine-project.eu Project leader for DFKI in SSPNet http://sspnet.eu Project leader PAVOQUE http://mary.dfki.de/pavoque Associate Editor IEEE Trans. Affective Computing http://computer.org/tac Editor W3C EmotionML Working Draft http://www.w3.org/TR/emotionml/ Portal Editor http://emotion-research.net Team Leader DFKI TTS Group http://mary.dfki.de Homepage: http://www.dfki.de/~schroed Email: marc.schroeder@dfki.de Phone: +49-681-85775-5303 Postal address: DFKI GmbH, Campus D3_2, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, D-66123 Saarbrücken, Germany -- Official DFKI coordinates: Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 13:23:03 UTC