- From: Andrew Thompson <lordpixel@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 09:31:14 -0400
- To: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk
- Cc: www-voice@w3.org
On Aug 2, 2004, at 3:13 AM, David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
>
> But that's an opinion, not a statement from the WD?
Absolutely. I'm not a member of the WG and I found no definitive answer
in the spec.
> Actually I think the spec does answer your question:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis/#AppF
>
> Which is informative?
Yes. Which I read as: "this section contains examples describing how
the currently available solutions mostly operate".
> As I said, it'll ultimately be vendor specific.
>
> No, its undefined in the WD, which I now believe to be a weakness
> easily addressed by the WG.
Well, sure. It rather depends on the purpose of a specification though,
doesn't it.
Does one write a specification to codify existing practice and promote
interoperability, or does one write a specification that aims at the
clear blue sky and tries to specify the next generation of technology:
to lead the implementors?
Most specifications are a mixture of both but I think history shows the
truly effective ones have been biased towards codifying what is already
a de facto standard. In other words, the working group can write
whatever they like into the spec, but if the vendors consider it
unreasonably difficult to do they'll just ignore it and produce a
partial implementation.
This has been an endemic problem with W3 standards (examples abound:
HTML 4, CSS 2, XHTML) and I think the newish CR process where features
are removed from the spec if they're not implemented by at least 2
independent parties is a good reaction.
Having said that, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the built in
lexicons for English language synths to handle cafe and café
adequately, but I'm not sure simply writing this in the specification
would have any effect. You'd really need to test then lobby any vendors
who aren't doing the right thing.
AndyT (lordpixel - the cat who walks through walls)
A little bigger on the inside
(see you later space cowboy ...)
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 09:31:49 UTC