W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1998

Re: please vote on this draft now

From: James Salsman <james@veritas.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <35AF9074.1A025DEC@veritas.com>
To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
CC: www-talk@w3.org

Thank you for your message:

> # ...approval.
> I can't imagine what might have given you this impression.

You sent a message to Ed Tecot and I around November last 
year wherein you suggested business-card scanning as another 
application of the extension to your INPUT TYPE=FILE RFC 
using the DEVICE=name_of_input_device attribute proposal 
which is the centerpiece of the draft.  Your suggestion was 
incorporated, attributed, and the draft re-distributed, and 
I haven't heard back from you until today.

> (1) is there a problem of sufficient scope to require a new spec?

The problems, examples of which are in the draft, are vast, 
pressing, and do not require much more than a simple extension to 
your own spec, as described in the draft.  Most of the problems 
concern language education.

> (2) does your proposal addresses the problem?

For asynchronous speech input, and many other forms of device 
input via form submission, yes.  Syncronous inputs are addressed 
elsewhere (e.g., RTP) but there are no other asynchronous speech 
form submission proposals to my knowledge.

> (3) is your proposal is technically complete, implementable
> as specified?

Yes:  security concerns are treated in full and I have a Linux 
Mozilla implementation of the core behavior.  I'm open to any 
improvements to the advanced details, but many people have already 
given it their best effort.  You seem unlikely to have suggested 
the use of other devices without some faith in the suitability 
of the draft, the base of which is yours anyway.  Without your 
promulgation of RFC 1867 your implementors would have probably been 
much less coherent, and speech input-enhanced forms have been on 
the HTML WG activity page goals statement for more than half a year.

> (4) is it downwardly interoperable?

Yes it is.  <INPUT TYPE=AUDIO ...> is to be read as <INPUT 

I've read the process documents and I obviously need your 
guidance because I have no idea what to do now.  I'd like to get 
some officials such as yourself lobbying for widespread 
implementation so the speech server folks (e.g., Speech Machines; 
http://www.cybertranscriber.com/ ) can start providing solutions
to the problems (1) which the draft is meant to address.

Ref:  ftp://ftp.bovik.org/draft-salsman-www-device-upload-02.txt

Sincere regards,
James Salsman
Received on Friday, 17 July 1998 13:57:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:23 UTC