- From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:43:41 -0400
- To: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
Group,
The minutes from today's call are available at http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html.
For convenience, a text version is embedded below.
(Many) Thanks to Robert Brown for taking the minutes.
-- dan
**********************************************************************************
HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference
04 Aug 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Aug/0006.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-irc
Attendees
Present
Dan_Burnett, Robert_Brown, Patrick_Ehlen, Milan_Young,
Michael_Johnston, Olli_Pettay, Michael_Bodell, Matt_Womer,
Debbie_Dahl, Dan_Druta, Charles_Hemphill, Satish_Sampath,
Bjorn_Bringert, Glen_Shires
Regrets
Chair
Dan_Burnett
Scribe
Robert_Brown
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Decide on next step for group after original charter
expires at end of August
2. [6]Discuss action items needed as a result of item 1
3. [7]Time permitting, discuss the Web API.
* [8]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Decide on next step for group after original charter expires at end of
August
Burn: My opinion is we've made good progress on use cases,
requirements and protocol, but not so much on web API
... as far as XGs go we've done a phenomenal job and are in a good
place to create a working group
... we should either decide to create a working group at the end of
august, or extend a few months then create a working group
Bjorn: agree. we should extend a short period to finish the web API
work.
... we should not start a new working group. we'd be working in
isolation. better to join an existing working group
Olli: need implementations
Burn: need a working group so we can get external feedback. working
groups create public document that are on a recommendation track,
which will attract external input
... less important whether it's our own working group or an existing
group
MichaelJ: we'll get lost if we go into a group that's too big
Bjorn: WebApps group may be small enough
Olli: some things need to be removed from WebApps charter
Satish: should talk with WebApps to see if there's a strong reason
we shouldn't be there
<smaug> some specs are being removed from web apps to a new wg
Bodell: important thing is that we get on a recommendation track,
whether it's a new one or existing one
Olli: removed from WebApps to new working groups
DanD: Could easily just finish our work in our own WG rather than
have an extension. Joining an existing WG would slow us down. Better
to finish before joining
Bjorn: to decide what to do with WGs, we need to talk to people from
existing WGs, and we need to have a piece of work to show them.
Burn: hearing from others that people are forming smaller groups
rather than joining larger ones
Matt: what people have said so far makes sense. either way is fine.
putting it in the HTML5 WG wouldn't be a good idea. Other WGs
working outside the HTML spec have been successful - geolocation
Debbie: important that we agree to continue on a standards track
... we really do have a lot of work left to do, and if we have our
own group it will be easier to make progress
Olli: or we could spend a lot of time on our own producing something
nobody wants
Satish: or what we produce could be inconsistent with existing APIs
& practices
Debbie: there's no guarantee that being in a larger group will get
us noticed by other members
Satish: reasons for other smaller groups forming may be specific to
that group, and different from our reasons (e.g. geolocation)
Matt: geolocation had other reasons. be careful with speech because
it's an IP minefield.
Michael: if we're in a web-focused group, are we going to be
constantly explaining speech?
Bjorn: we don't have enough web-focus
<matt> s/minefield, so if you go outside w3c, be ware of the patent
policies/
Charles: i.e. the web javascript expertise
Bjorn: we don't have any actual web developers or browser developers
in the group
Charles: it would be good to put this in front of web developers
Burn: Bjorn's point is that we need to make this relevant to the web
community.
... concerned that if we wrap up as an incubator, there are people
who will treat it as a standard, which is wrong
... how do we get the involvement of the broader web community
Bjorn: the way to get their involvement is to implement stuff that
people can use and get their feedback
Burn: agreed
Bjorn: danger is that we come up with stuff nobody would implement
Burn: if we to form or join a WG, there's nothing to stop us issuing
a draft in the same timeframe we would have issued an XG report.
Which approach will give us the best feedback? If we're in a WG,
which one would give us the best feedback?
<matt> [You can start a WG before the work is done. Start writing a
draft now.]
Burn: there's admin time involved in setting up a WG, so deciding
early helps
<matt> [You also can't just join a new WG, you have to add to the
charter of the existing WG and have it approved, which can lose
members if they're unwilling to commit to disclosing patents on the
new work]
MichaelJ: own group has startup costs, but IP benefits. least cost
of setup is to join the Multimodal WG
Bjorn: has anything from Multimodal WG been implemented in any
browser?
Bodell: not in standard web browsers. but for example, Microsoft
Office implements the ink spec
Debbie: part of the problem is that speech is a very different
technology from other web technology, and in a group with a lot of
web-oriented people, there's danger of marginalization. there's a
deep investment to get people to understand speech.
Satish: if we can't explain it to WG members, it'll be even harder
to explain it to developers
Bjorn: most important thing is to get implementation, even if that
means we should dumb it down
Charles: javascript focus puts it in the speech developers area,
rather than markup
Burn: agree that the goal is to get implementations developers will
use
<matt> [9]WebApps Charter
[9] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/
Burn: WebApps charter seems to encompass us generically, although
speech isn't mentioned
... may be an issue with speech IP. would existing participants have
concerns about speech technology in the group
... Could talk to the chairs/leads of the group. There's a
coordination group call tomorrow that Dan and Debbie will be in.
Debbie: good idea. no call tomorrow, but there will be one next
week.
Dan: but it does delay our decision
... by at least two weeks. It'll take a month+ to get a new WG
started
<matt> [You can start writing a charter language now, without making
a decision, focus on recommendation track deliverables section,
groups you will talk to will probably want that information anyway]]
Dan: should email to coordination group to setup the conversation
Olli: (member of webapps) Being in WebApps doesn't guarantee more
input. Other groups have been merged without resulting in more
feedback. On the other hand, there's work that's proceeding well
outside of WebApps
MichaelJ: agree we need to get things implemented in browsers.
Disturbing if the only way for that to happen is if it's in certain
WGs
Burn: WebRTC isn't concerned about getting feedback. Once they
publish something (tomorrow?) they'll get lots more feedback
DanD: WebRTC is good analogy. Very specific focus and separate
group.
... any way to do things in parallel. e.g. extend XG charter for a
month, and start the process of initiating a WG now, then transition
when possible
Burn: yes, and that's what I'd assume
... if we extend, there's no reason we'd not work on WG
participation or chartering in parallel
... Tech plenary is end of Oct, 1st week of September. May be the
natural point to start a new group if we wanted to. Wrap up XG
before end of October.
Debbie: if we joined an existing WG, this would be the ideal time
for a F2F to get to know them
Olli: WebApps has never had any F2F meetings. It's is pretty much
email only.
<matt> [[WebApps met at last TPAC]]
Olli: except at the last TPAC
Burn: any other comments on TPAC & timing?
<matt> [[WebApps also appears to have met two weeks ago:
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/06
60.html and appears to be meeting at TPAC 2011:
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/09
86.html ]]
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0660.html
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0986.html
Satish: it's fine to meet in person at TPAC whatever path we choose
Burn: do we agree that if we extend the XG, we'll start standards
track work at a specific date, and decide which WG to join/start
over the next month?
Bodell: agree
<smaug> WebApps DOM events subgroup has telcons
Bjorn: extend to end of October means we sustain a high pace until
then
... agree with the approach
... don't care about standard as such, care about developers having
an interoperable API
Olli: extending XG sounds good. don't care whether it's a new or
existing WG.
DanD: we should extend to October with clear agreement to move into
a standards track
MichaelJ: we do need to go into a standards track. we've managed to
get things together quickly, and if we don't go into a standards
track soon, it will fracture
Burn: not clear that there's agreement from browser implementers
about whether we should go into a WG track
Bjorn: not opposed to standardization. just not sure whtether it's
the highest priority. but it won't hurt either
Olli: what we'll produce won't be good enough to be an interoperable
specification.
DanD: Bjorn's indifference to the next step is well taken, but the
report won't be good enough to implement anything interoperable
Bjorn: joining a w3c group isn't the only way to achieve this. the
whatwg is, for example, an alternative
Bodell: for some companies and some reviewers, the w3c
recommendation track is more important
Olli: agrees with Bjorn that it doesn't matter where the spec is
written
Bjorn: agree to extend the XG, and to move to a wider group
Burn: anybody who's opinion on whether we extend depends on what the
plan is for after?
... [silence]
Bjorn: good question. not me
Satish: agree
Bodell: only if our decision was to transition to WG at the end of
August, but it sounds like people are okay with extending
Burn: general agreement that we should extend the XG to wrap up the
work. general timeframe would be end of October / early November.
Bodell: err on the long date
MichaelJ: watch out for publication moratorium
Bjorn: okay with end-October to end-December
Discuss action items needed as a result of item 1
Burn: action items are on me. get the charter extended. talk to
people in w3c about where to continue the work if it were to
continue in the w3c
Time permitting, discuss the Web API.
Bodell: we could discuss Olli's recent mail
Bjorn: could be get a status? there are a lot of open items on the
API
Burn: I'll get to my item as soon as I can, not sure when
Debbie: have two items. sent an update this morning on one, still
need to work on getting results back, but open to somebody else
taking that (otherwise will take 2 weeks)
Charles: no progress this week, more next week
Bodell: Olli got his done
Olli: [discussion of his capture hooks spec]
Bodell: [general agreement from everybody]
Debbie: discuss design decision 29 - API to provide control over
which parts of the captured audio are sent to the recognizer
Bjorn: one use case is where you're capturing audio all the time,
but something else in the UI places a boundary around when the user
speaks (e.g. a button, visual prompt, etc)
Debbie: not redundant with design decision 28, which had to do with
endpointing
Bjorn: anybody have a strong use case for this?
Debbie: could update the design decision
Bjorn: happy to not obey this design decision
Debbie: how do we retract a decision?
Bjorn: Dan puts a strike-through in the final report?
Burn: or not copy it into the official section. have some ideas for
how to handle this sort of thing
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 18:44:22 UTC