Re: Overview paragraph

Yes..I agree with Satish's point...any application that desires to leverage advanced/specific features
of an ASR, cannot be guaranteed to be portable..within the scope our spec..and applications
that use the default ( LCD ?) recognizer ( not sure if this is what Dan D had in mind, by saying
"simple" applications )  should be portable and have consistent user experience with conforming
browser/clients. 

--Raj
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Satish S 
  To: Patrick Ehlen 
  Cc: Deborah Dahl ; Young, Milan ; DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI) ; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:38 PM
  Subject: Re: Overview paragraph


  As an express goal, perhaps we should clearly state that applications that use the default/built-in recognizer should be portable across all browsers and speech engines. Beyond that, if the web app chooses to use a particular engine by specifying a URL it seems ok to rely on extended/additional capabilities provided by that engine.

  Cheers
  Satish



  On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Patrick Ehlen <pehlen@attinteractive.com> wrote:

    Deborah is right that not all speech engines will have the same capabilities, but we should strive to provide general parameterizations of the potential capabilities wherever possible. Otherwise engine providers will need to add their own extensions to the standard, and development will get fractured across the lines of browser/engine, as we saw happen with earlier Javascript XML handlers, etc.


    On Apr 20, 2011, at 8:27, "Deborah Dahl" <dahl@conversational-technologies.com> wrote:

    > I don't think we can reach the goal of applications being completely
    > portable across speech engines  because speech engines will always have
    > different capabilities, and some of these are unlikely to be in the scope of
    > our API.  For example, engines will handle different languages, some engines
    > will be able to handle larger grammars, some applications will make use of
    > proprietary SLM's, and some applications won't be usable without an engine
    > that has a certain level of accuracy. So  I agree with Milan that the goal
    > is not to standardize functionality across speech engines. I think we should
    > just say " provide the user with a consistent experience across different
    > platforms and devices" and leave it at that.
    >
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: public-xg-htmlspeech-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-htmlspeech-
    >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Satish S
    >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 5:18 AM
    >> To: Young, Milan
    >> Cc: DRUTA, DAN (ATTSI); public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
    >> Subject: Re: Overview paragraph
    >>
    >>    >> provide the user with a consistent experience across different
    >>    platforms and devices irrespective of the speech engine used.
    >>
    >>
    >>    This effort is not about standardizing functionality across speech
    >>    engines.  The goal is speech application portability across the
    >>    browsers.  Simple applications MAY be portable across speech engine
    >>    boundaries, but that's not a requirement.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I'd say the API proposal should aim for all applications to be portable
    > across
    >> speech engines. Starting with "may be portable" doesn't seem to fit the
    > spirit
    >> of the web. Any extensions for speech engine specific parameters and
    >> results should be optional.
    >
    >
    >