RE: [pls] Invitation letter for WAI/I18N/MMI people interested on Pronunciation Lexicon spec

Dave,

you are partially right.

The "ipa" value is *should* so it is recognized by an
engine, but it is not required. The reason was to be
close to the wording of the SSML 1.0 Recommendation.
The VB decided in a conf call to be close to SSML 
wording for the PLS too. It seems to
me that your are not happy with this decision and the
WAI comments are a good way for discussing it or other
issues.

The fact that W3C VB has chosen that wording has had
some very good consequence, requiring at least 
2 companies to show the implementation.
I'm sure you can easily guess at least one of them.
Therefore the community is in any case pushed
to consider "ipa" as a standard format and the
technology producer to consider the compliance
to a *real* standard pronunciation alphabet.

A second aspect is that the PLS language is something
more that the "alphabet" attribute itself, even if the 
pronunciation is a key aspect for this specification. 
I don't think we are loosing our time by working on PLS,
and neither are the W3C Team members by reading this spec
and sending comments.

I was going to invite some of you for a lunch to present
the PLS and to collect useful comment like the
one you are raising by this e-mail.

Your confirmation will be appreciated. I was suggesting to
have it on Monday lunch time. Is it OK for you
and other WAI people?

Paolo

-----Original Message-----
From: Pawson, David [mailto:David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:31 PM
To: Baggia Paolo; www-voice@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
Subject: RE: [pls] Invitation letter for WAI/I18N/MMI people interested
on Pronunciation Lexicon spec


 

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Baggia Paolo
    
    we just published the first WD. Are you going to comment it too?
    
    I'll be very interested to your comments.
    See: http://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-lexicon

>From that WD.

<quote>In the Pronunciation Lexicon Specification the pronunciation alphabet is specified by the "alphabet" attribute (see Section 4.1 and Section 4.6 for details on the use of this attribute). The only valid values for the "alphabet" attribute are "ipa" (see the next paragraph) and vendor-defined strings of the form "x-organization" or "x-organization-alphabet". </quote>

then 

<quote>A processor should support a value for "alphabet" of "ipa", </quote>
Note the 'should'.

then

<quote>The production of output when other codes are given is entirely at processor discretion.</quote>


My interpretation.

W3C members and staff are spending time and money on a WD | recommendation
which is not going to standardise anything, since the only 'standard' alphabet
is optional (a *should*, not a must).


Where is the standardisation?

  Is the intention to standardise the n various alphabets in use by 
vendors? They equally are optional and presumably have rights tied to them.




Is this what W3C are doing?

Tell me where my interpretation is wrong please?

regards DaveP

-- 
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk





Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to
MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you
====================================================================

Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 15:34:21 UTC