- From: James Salsman <james@veritas.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
- CC: www-talk@w3.org
Larry, 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 TYPE=FILE DEVICE=MICROPHONE ...> for instance. 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