RE: [PLS1.0] i18n comment: TTS vs. ASR in 4.5

> > List of the issues - Implicitly Accepted (see [4]) ==========
> > R103-26:
> > Resolution: Accepted
> > 
> > - Asked clarification on TTS and ASR in Section 4.5 [2]
> > - We clarified the issue and rejected your comment.
> > - You asked us to see comments at [5]
> > - You should clarify if you accept our resolution, see also
> >   Section 4.5 [3]
> > 
> > + E-mail Trail
> > - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
> >
> > - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
> >
> > - Comments to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-06-14)
> >

The i18n WG is now satisfied. Thank you.


Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)



 From: Baggia Paolo [] 
 Sent: 26 May 2006 15:20
 Cc: Baggia Paolo; Richard Ishida
 Subject: Re: [PLS1.0] i18n comment: TTS vs. ASR in 4.5

 Issue R103-26

 Proposed Classification: Clarification / Typo / Editorial 

 Resolution: Reject 

 The following text appears in Section 4.5 [1]: 

 "In order to remove the need for duplication of pronunciation information to cope with the above variations, the <lexeme> element may contain more than one <grapheme> element to define the base orthography and any variants which should share the pronunciations." 

 We believe that there is general utility, beyond text-to-speech, for supporting multiple graphemes. To illustrate one such case, the following lexicon might be used for US English: 

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

  <lexicon version="1.0" xmlns=""

        alphabet="ipa" xml:lang="en-US">














 In text-to-speech documents, as has been noted, 

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

  <speak version="1.0" xmlns=""



      <lexicon uri=""/> 


      <p> In the judgement of my fiancé, Las Vegas is the best place for a honeymoon.

        I replied that I preferred Venice and didn't think the Venetian casino was an

        acceptable compromise.<\p> 


 but also in speech recognition grammars, 

  <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

  <grammar version="1.0" xmlns="" 

    xml:lang="en-US" root="movies">


      <lexicon uri=""/> 


      <rule id="movies" scope="public"> 


          <item>Terminator 2: Judgment Day<\item> 

          <item>My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance<\item> 

          <item>Pluto's Judgement Day<\item> 




 We feel that this is used both for TTS and ASR therefore we reject your proposal to add only "text-to-speech".
 Please indicate whether you are satisfied with the VBWG's resolution, whether you think there has been a misunderstanding, or whether you wish to register an objection. 

 [1] <>  

 Paolo Baggia, editor PLS spec.

 P.S. If you have trouble to see the IPA codes, please ask me. I’ll upload a HTML

 document and send you the URI.

 From: < <> >
 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:50:11 +0000
 To: <> , <> 
 Message-Id: <> 

    Comment from the i18n review of: <> 

  Comment 26

  At <> 

  Editorial/substantive: E

  Owner: RI

  Location in reviewed document:

  4.5, 3rd para


  "In order to remove the need for duplication of pronunciation information to cope with the above variations, the<lexeme> element may"

  Here is an example of where it might be good to distinguish between TTS and ASR. You could say: "In order to remove the need for duplication of pronunciation information to cope with the above variations during text-to-speech, the <lexeme> element may contain"

 Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.
 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
 <> Thank you


Received on Friday, 15 December 2006 14:07:54 UTC