- From: Andrew Hunt <andrew.hunt@speechworks.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:30:58 -0400
- To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <www-voice@w3.org>
Al, I will raise the whitespace issue with the WG this week. To be honest, I need to look through some fairly old notes to recreate the reasoning for the decision! Regards, Andrew Hunt > -----Original Message----- > From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Al Gilman > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 5:31 PM > To: www-voice@w3.org > Subject: 'semantic' processing processes whitespace exactly as speech > recognition does (else not semantic) > > > > In the specification there is a remark to the effect > > -- quote > > A future draft of this specification will define semantic processing > behavior. It is expected that white-space will be preserved in > semantic results. > > -- end quote > > No. Don't even think about it. > > The web must not speak with a forked tongue. > > There has to be _one_ semantic model for whitespace in token declarations in > speech recognition grammars. Or there is none. > > The speech processing semantics is that leading and trailing whitespace is not > there, and contiguous sections of whitespace in the interior [that is to say > appearing with non-whitespace both before and after it] is recognized at the > "any whitespace is the same as any other whitespace" level of abstraction. > > That's the speech recognition behavior, that's the grammar language > semantics. > Point, paragraph, end of story. > > Processing that recognizes other distinctions is not 'semantic,' it is > _amplifying noise_. > > I can't scream this loud enough. The semantics of a grammar encoded in this > language is how it recognizes speech. That's all that will ever be checked, > that's all one can reasonably expect to count on. > > Al > > Standard 'personal opinion' disclaimer applies. But I can explain [start with > XMLGL, see previous message] why the 'disability interest' does care about the > semantic integrity of our technology. >
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 19:31:17 UTC