- From: Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:20:19 +0000
- To: Olli@pettay.fi
- Cc: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>, "public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org" <public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote: > On 11/11/2010 08:40 PM, Olli Pettay wrote: >> >> On 11/11/2010 08:34 PM, Young, Milan wrote: >>> >>> Hello Olli, >>> >>> Near the end of the call you made a comment on IRC. Something along the >>> lines that you might not agree with the requirement. To which >>> requirement were you referring? Was this the requirement for a default >>> speech implementation? >>> >>> Thank you >>> >> >> It was about the plugins and such. >> To allow web apps to work in all browsers, web apps should not rely on >> some particular local speech engine. >> >> But I need to think about this, since I do realize that >> some engines may not work well enough in all use cases. >> >> >> -Olli >> >> > > So, IMO, we shouldn't recommend or require the case when web app can > ask UA/user to install any kind of plugins. > UA should (or probably must, so that we can support offline web apps) > have local speech engines, and perhaps it can have some > mechanism to replace the default embedded engines with some other ones, > or maybe an UA can support several different kinds of engines, but by > default web apps should just work regardless what the engine is. > > I don't think we want to be in a similar situation where browsers are > now with plugins like Flash; it works in some systems but not all > and UA vendors cannot do anything to it. And yet there are web pages > which absolutely require Flash to work. I agree with Olli's opinion. We should not require UAs to install app-requested local speech service implementations. -- Bjorn Bringert Google UK Limited, Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 21:20:50 UTC