- From: Eric S. Johansson <esj@harvee.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:29:34 -0500
- To: "Young, Milan" <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
- CC: Olli@pettay.fi, Bjorn Bringert <bringert@google.com>, public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
On 2/1/2011 1:55 PM, Young, Milan wrote: > I agree that it is important to keep the default and network APIs as > consistent as possible. Consider the scenario where the application > requests the remote service, but it is unavailable. Ideally, the code > simply modifies a couple variables and proceeds with the default > services. Wouldn't you want the decision to switch and how to switch be the decision of a policy manager? > What do folks think about exposing local services via protocol? This > would meet both of the above considerations. I think it would be great to expose local services by the same protocol as remote services because, after all they are functionally the same thing. it would also give people the ability to speech enable a remote application application while using your grammars etc.
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 04:30:41 UTC