RE: Pronunciation Lexicon Markup Requirements

> "vendor-specific alphabets" (6.7).
> my point was that not ALL vendor alphabets can be supported: 
> do you allow
> each vendor to support optional additional alphabets (which 
> does not require
> a standard, so why include it in this one?), or do you insist 
> that everyone
> who wishes to conform to the standard must support the 
> Microsoft, Apple, IBM
> and SUN alphabets (thus effectively discriminating against 
> everyone else)?
> it's a difficult question, i think!
> 				alex.

My opinion only...

I don't expect vendors to support other vendors alphabets, a vendor may
choose if they wish to support other vendor alphabets provided that there
are no commmercial/legal reasons why this is not possible, but I do not
expect this to be a necessary for conformance to the spec.
I don't expect the specification itself to declare any kind of list of
vendor specific alphabets so in that sense vendor specifics are not really
part of the spec, all the spec might say is that it is allowable to use a
non-standard alphabet and still be conforming.

The intention is not to discriminate but to provide an evolution path from
the current vendor specific pronunciation lexica through to a more open
portable pronunciation definition. 


Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 10:51:28 UTC