> I have always interpreted the 'neutral' value as "if possible, pick a > voice that doesn't sound male or female in an obvious manner. Note that > this may select a more robotic voice, or for example a human-sounding > stylised voice". That is what I was thinking of. > there is no point speccing 'neutral' to mean 'a human-sounding voice of > indeterminate gender' if that it is not what how they interpret it. It > seems like we are paving the cowpaths somewhat here, and need to respect > how the existing implementations behave, even if it isn't necessarily > what we would prefer given a free-hand. Of course existing implementations have to be considered. So Daniel's interpretation sounds fine to me. When speccing this I would just mention that a more human-sounding voice is is preferred over an artificial or robotic voice. SebastianReceived on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 09:44:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC