Re: Speech API Community Group

Perhaps true for users of the applicaitons. But, Authors would need 
Resource-specification(location),
hence clearly specifying how network/local services can be used ( even 
if protocols are out of scope)
, outside of browser-defaults will be of interest to many including 
Openstream.

Raj



On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:45:45 -0400
  Jerry Carter <jerry@jerrycarter.org> wrote:
> 
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Young, Milan wrote:
> 
>> The proposal mentions that the specification of a network speech 
>>protocol is out of scope. This makes sense given that protocols are 
>>the domain of the IETF.
>>  
>> But I’d like to confirm that the use of network speech services are 
>>in scope for this CG.  Would you mind amending the proposal to make 
>>this explicit?
> 
> I don't see why any such declaration is necessary.  From the 
>perspective of the application author or of the application user, it 
>matters very little where the speech-to-text operation occurs so long 
>as the result is delivered promptly.  There is no reason that local, 
>network-based, or hybrid solutions would be unable to provide 
>adequate performance.  I believe the current language in the proposal 
>is appropriate.
> 
> -=- Jerry
> 

--
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:  
THIS E-MAIL IS  MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW.  IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 
Reply to : legal@openstream.com

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 19:07:57 UTC