Re: "Protocol" requirement - Interpretation

I don't have any objections to this as a requirement other than that
it adds API complexity. It's not a requirement that I would prioritize
highly.

/Bjorn

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
> XmlHttpRequest may work fine, but it assumes a largely bypassed UA to handle other requirements such as session tracking.  It also assumes a SS with an HTTP server.
>
> So while I share your optimism on these points, I agree with Michael that we need to be careful.
>
> Any objections with adding this to spec even if it may later be rendered trivial by device approach?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjorn Bringert [mailto:bringert@google.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:13 AM
> To: Young, Milan
> Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "Protocol" requirement - Interpretation
>
> Why does this have to be part of the speech API? Remote text
> interpretation can be done without using any speech APIs. I've
> implemented that myself a couple of times using just XmlHttpRequest.
>
> /Bjorn
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Young, Milan <Milan.Young@nuance.com> wrote:
>> Summary - Web applications must be able to request NL interpretation based
>> only on text input (no audio sent).
>>
>>
>>
>> Description - Recognizers commonly separate lexical speech token processing
>> from its semantic understanding.  This often requires multiple passes of
>> semantic processing.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Bjorn Bringert
> Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
> Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
> Registered in England Number: 3977902
>



-- 
Bjorn Bringert
Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham
Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ
Registered in England Number: 3977902

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 12:42:40 UTC