RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19

It's entirely up to the Working Group that takes on this work how to proceed
with prioritization. 
It's my belief that they would be interested in any public comments on the
proposals and the XG's prioritization, though.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Bernard [mailto:dbernard@intellectiongroup.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:19 PM
> To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> 
> Based on the link below, it looks like there is already a prioritized
list.
> So what *could* happen next is that the Strong Interest items would be
> designated "good enough" for the first pass; what then?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 2:17 PM
> To: dbernard@intellectiongroup.com; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> 
> How prioritization works in practice depends on how a specific Working
> Group
> decides to organize its work, but generally, the W3C is very
> consensus-oriented and tries to make sure that all opinions are respected.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Bernard [mailto:dbernard@intellectiongroup.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:39 PM
> > To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> >
> > Deborah-
> >
> > So how would a good "democratic" prioritization work, in practice? Is
> > that something that is rare/common in similar W3C endeavors?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 12:00 PM
> > To: dbernard@intellectiongroup.com; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> >
> > I agree that getting "good enough" out there sooner is an excellent
> > goal, although in practice there's always a lot of room for
> > disagreement about what's "good enough".
> > There isn't a draft priority list now, although the XG final report
> > does include prioritized requirements [1]. However, the requirements
> > in the
> list
> > are just prioritized into very general classes, like "strong
> > interest", so they only provide a general guide to possible priorities
> > for the standardization work.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-htmlspeech-
> 20111206/#p
> > rioritized
> 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dave Bernard [mailto:dbernard@intellectiongroup.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 11:14 AM
> > > To: 'Deborah Dahl'; 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> > >
> > > Deborah-
> > >
> > > Is there a draft priority list in existence? I like the idea of
> > > getting "good enough" out there sooner, especially as an implementer
> > > with real projects in the space.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Deborah Dahl [mailto:dahl@conversational-technologies.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 10:43 AM
> > > To: 'Satish S'; 'Young, Milan'
> > > Cc: 'Arthur Barstow'; 'public-webapps'; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> > >
> > > Olli has a good point that it makes sense to implement the SpeechAPI
> > > in pieces. That doesn't mean that the WebApps WG only has to look at
> > > one proposal in deciding how to proceed with the work. Another
> > > option would be to start off the Speech API work in the Web Apps
> > > group with both proposals (the Google proposal and the SpeechXG
> > > report) and let the editors
> > prioritize
> > > the order that the different aspects of the API are worked out and
> > published
> > > as specs.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Satish S [mailto:satish@google.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:01 PM
> > > > To: Young, Milan
> > > > Cc: Arthur Barstow; public-webapps; public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> > > >
> > > > Milan,
> > > > It looks like we fundamentally agree on several things:
> > > > *  That we'd like to see the JavaScript Speech API included in the
> > > > WebApps' charter.*  That we believe the wire protocol is best
> > > > suited for another organization, such as IETF.*  That we believe
> > > > the markup bindings may be excluded.
> > > > Our only difference seems to be whether to start with the
> > > > extensive Javascript API proposed in [1] or the simplified subset
> > > > of it proposed in [2] which supports majority of the use cases in
> > > > the XG’s Final Report.
> > > >
> > > > Art Barstow asked for “a relatively specific proposal” and
> > > > provided some precedence examples regarding the level of detail.
> > > > [3] Olli Pettay wrote in [4] “Since from practical point of view
> > > > the
> > > > API+protocol XG defined is a huge thing to implement at once, it
> > > > API+makes
> > > > sense to implement it in pieces.”
> > > > Starting with a baseline that supports the majority of use cases
> > > > will accelerate implementation, interoperability testing,
> > > > standardization and ultimately developer adoption.
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Satish
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-
> > htmlspeech/[2]
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/att-
> > > > 1696/speechapi.html[3]
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-
> > > > webapps/2011OctDec/1474.html[4]
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0068
> > > > .h tm l On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Young, Milan
> > > > <Milan.Young@nuance.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've made the point a few times now, and would appreciate a
> response.
> > > > > Why are we preferring to seed WebApps speech with [2] when we
> > > > > already have [3] that represents industry consensus as of a
> > > > > month ago (Google not withstanding)?  Proceeding with [2] would
> > > > > almost surely delay the resulting specification as functionality
> > > > > would patched and haggled over to meet consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > My counter proposal is to open the HTML/speech marriage in
> > > > > WebApps essentially where we left off at [3].  The only variants
> > > > > being: 1) Dropping the markup bindings in sections 7.1.2/7.1.3
> > > > > because its primary supporter has since expressed non-interest,
> > > > > and 2) Spin the protocol specification in 7.2 out to the IETF.
> > > > > If I need to formalize all of this in a document, please let me
> know.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > >
> > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/XGR-
> htmlspeech/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@nokia.com]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:31 AM
> > > > > To: public-webapps
> > > > > Cc: public-xg-htmlspeech@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: CfC: to add Speech API to Charter; deadline January 19
> > > > >
> > > > > Glen Shires and some others at Google proposed [1] that WebApps
> > > > > add Speech API to WebApps' charter and they put forward the
> > > > > Speech Javascript API Specification [2] as as a starting point.
> > > > > Members of Mozilla and Nuance have voiced various levels of
> > > > > support for this proposal. As such, this is a Call for Consensus
> > > > > to add Speech API to WebApps' charter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Positive response to this CfC is preferred and encouraged and
> > > > > silence will be considered as agreeing with the proposal. The
> > > > > deadline for comments is January 19 and all comments should be
> > > > > sent to public-
> > > > webapps
> > > > > at w3.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > -AB
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/16
> > > > > 96
> > > > > .h
> > > > > tml
> > > > > [2]
> > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011OctDec/at
> > > > > t-
> > > > 1696/s
> > > > > peechapi.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Received on Sunday, 15 January 2012 21:33:47 UTC