16:08:41 RRSAgent has joined #htmlspeech
16:08:41 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-irc
16:08:49 trackbot, start telcon
16:08:54 RRSAgent, make logs public
16:08:56 Zakim, this will be
16:08:56 I don't understand 'this will be', trackbot
16:08:57 Meeting: HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference
16:08:57 Date: 04 August 2011
16:08:59 -[Microsoft]
16:09:03 Chair: Dan_Burnett
16:09:06 zakim, code?
16:09:06 the conference code is 48657 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), matt
16:09:10 Scribe: Robert_Brown
16:09:19 ScribeNick: Robert
16:09:21 I'm having VoIP server issues
16:09:31 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Aug/0006.html
16:09:47 +[Microsoft]
16:09:57 zakim, who's noisy?
16:10:18 burn, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [Microsoft] (18%), Dan_Burnett (51%)
16:11:08 -Glen_Shires
16:11:12 topic: Decide on next step for group after original charter expires at end of August
16:11:50 +Glen_Shires
16:12:02 Burn: My opinion is we've made good progress on use cases, requirements and protocol, but not so much on web API
16:12:37 ... as far as XGs go we've done a phenomenal job and are in a good place to create a working group
16:13:08 ... we should either decide to create a working group at the end of august, or extend a few months then create a working group
16:13:44 Bjorn: agree. we should extend a short period to finish the web API work.
16:14:06 ... we should not start a new working group. we'd be working in isolation. better to join an existing working group
16:14:51 Olli: need implementations
16:16:10 Burn: need a working group so we can get external feedback. working groups create public document that are on a recommendation track, which will attract external input
16:16:40 ... less important whether it's our own working group or an existing group
16:17:26 MichaelJ: we'll get lost if we go into a group that's too big
16:17:41 Bjorn: WebApps group may be small enough
16:17:58 Olli: some things need to be removed from WebApps charter
16:18:30 Satish: should talk with WebApps to see if there's a strong reason we shouldn't be there
16:18:44 some specs are being removed from web apps to a new wg
16:19:02 Bodell: important thing is that we get on a recommendation track, whether it's a new one or existing one
16:19:16 rvid has joined #htmlspeech
16:19:35 Olli: removed from WebApps to new working groups
16:20:57 DanD: Could easily just finish our work in our own WG rather than have an extension. Joining an existing WG would slow us down. Better to finish before joining
16:21:50 allanwoj has joined #htmlspeech
16:22:06 Bjorn: to decide what to do with WGs, we need to talk to people from existing WGs, and we need to have a piece of work to show them.
16:22:40 zakim, unmute me
16:22:40 Matt should no longer be muted
16:22:46 Burn: hearing from others that people are forming smaller groups rather than joining larger ones
16:23:58 Matt: what people have said so far makes sense. either way is fine. putting it in the HTML5 WG wouldn't be a good idea. Other WGs working outside the HTML spec have been successful - geolocation
16:24:06 zakim, mute me
16:24:06 Matt should now be muted
16:24:24 Debbie: important that we agree to continue on a standards track
16:25:04 ... we really do have a lot of work left to do, and if we have our own group it will be easier to make progress
16:25:22 Olli: or we could spend a lot of time on our own producing something nobody wants
16:25:43 Satish: or what we produce could be inconsistent with existing APIs & practices
16:26:05 Debbie: there's no guarantee that being in a larger group will get us noticed by other members
16:26:52 zakim, unmute me
16:26:52 Matt should no longer be muted
16:27:00 burn has joined #htmlspeech
16:27:16 Satish: reasons for other smaller groups forming may be specific to that group, and different from our reasons (e.g. geolocation)
16:27:28 zakim, who's here?
16:27:28 On the phone I see Patrick_Ehlen, Milan_Young, Michael_Johnston, Michael_Bodell, Matt, Debbie_Dahl, Dan_Druta, Dan_Burnett, Charles_Hemphill, Olli_Pettay, Satish_Sampath,
16:27:31 ... Bjorn_Bringert, [Microsoft], Glen_Shires
16:27:33 On IRC I see burn, allanwoj, rvid, RRSAgent, bringert, smaug, Charles, ddahl, DanD, mbodell, matt, satish, MichaelJ, ehlen, Milan, Zakim, Robert, trackbot
16:27:40 zakim, mute me
16:27:40 Matt should now be muted
16:27:47 zakim, [Microsoft] is Robert_Brown
16:27:47 +Robert_Brown; got it
16:27:56 Matt: geolocation had other reasons. be careful with speech because it's an IP minefield.
16:28:32 Michael: if we're in a web-focused group, are we going to be constantly explaining speech?
16:28:51 Bjorn: we don't have enough web-focus
16:29:14 s/minefield, so if you go outside w3c, be ware of the patent policies/
16:29:30 Charles: i.e. the web javascript expertise
16:30:03 Bjorn: we don't have any actual web developers or browser developers in the group
16:30:19 Charles: it would be good to put this in front of web developers
16:30:36 Burn: Bjorn's point is that we need to make this relevant to the web community.
16:30:57 ... concerned that if we wrap up as an incubator, there are people who will treat it as a standard, which is wrong
16:31:07 ... how do we get the involvement of the broader web community
16:31:28 Bjorn: the way to get their involvement is to implement stuff that people can use and get their feedback
16:31:46 Burn: agreed
16:32:03 Bjorn: danger is that we come up with stuff nobody would implement
16:33:29 Burn: if we to form or join a WG, there's nothing to stop us issuing a draft in the same timeframe we would have issued an XG report. Which approach will give us the best feedback? If we're in a WG, which one would give us the best feedback?
16:33:58 [You can start a WG before the work is done. Start writing a draft now.]
16:34:24 ... there's admin time involved in setting up a WG, so deciding early helps
16:34:28 [You also can't just join a new WG, you have to add to the charter of the existing WG and have it approved, which can lose members if they're unwilling to commit to disclosing patents on the new work]
16:35:10 MichaelJ: own group has startup costs, but IP benefits. least cost of setup is to join the Multimodal WG
16:35:36 Bjorn: has anything from Multimodal WG been implemented in any browser?
16:36:16 Bodell: not in standard web browsers. but for example, Microsoft Office implements the ink spec
16:36:28 burn has joined #htmlspeech
16:36:56 zakim, I am Dan_Burnett
16:36:56 ok, burn, I now associate you with Dan_Burnett
16:37:27 Debbie: part of the problem is that speech is a very different technology from other web technology, and in a group with a lot of web-oriented people, there's danger of marginalization. there's a deep investment to get people to understand speech.
16:38:00 Satish: if we can't explain it to WG members, it'll be even harder to explain it to developers
16:38:25 Bjorn: most important thing is to get implementation, even if that means we should dumb it down
16:39:01 Charles: javascript focus puts it in the speech developers area, rather than markup
16:39:24 Burn: agree that the goal is to get implementations developers will use
16:39:44 -> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ WebApps Charter
16:40:18 ... WebApps charter seems to encompass us generically, although speech isn't mentioned
16:40:41 ... may be an issue with speech IP. would existing participants have concerns about speech technology in the group
16:41:35 ... Could talk to the chairs/leads of the group. There's a coordination group call tomorrow that Dan and Debbie will be in.
16:41:50 Debbie: good idea. no call tomorrow, but there will be one next week.
16:42:15 Dan: but it does delay our decision
16:42:54 ... by at least two weeks. It'll take a month+ to get a new WG started
16:43:18 [You can start writing a charter language now, without making a decision, focus on recommendation track deliverables section, groups you will talk to will probably want that information anyway]]
16:44:28 ... should email to coordination group to setup the conversation
16:45:31 Olli: (member of webapps) Being in WebApps doesn't guarantee more input. Other groups have been merged without resulting in more feedback. On the other hand, there's work that's proceeding well outside of WebApps
16:46:24 MichaelJ: agree we need to get things implemented in browsers. Disturbing if the only way for that to happen is if it's in certain WGs
16:47:39 Burn: WebRTC isn't concerned about getting feedback. Once they publish something (tomorrow?) they'll get lots more feedback
16:47:49 glen has joined #htmlspeech
16:48:13 DanD: WebRTC is good analogy. Very specific focus and separate group.
16:48:24 + +1.408.359.aabb
16:48:29 -Glen_Shires
16:48:49 ... any way to do things in parallel. e.g. extend XG charter for a month, and start the process of initiating a WG now, then transition when possible
16:49:00 Burn: yes, and that's what I'd assume
16:49:33 ... if we extend, there's no reason we'd not work on WG participation or chartering in parallel
16:50:41 ... Tech plenary is end of Oct, 1st week of September. May be the natural point to start a new group if we wanted to. Wrap up XG before end of October.
16:52:13 Debbie: if we joined an existing WG, this would be the ideal time for a F2F to get to know them
16:52:36 Olli: WebApps has never had any F2F meetings. It's email only.
16:52:47 [[WebApps met at last TPAC]]
16:52:54 ... except at the last TPAC
16:53:33 Burn: any other comments on TPAC & timing?
16:53:55 [[WebApps also appears to have met two weeks ago: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011AprJun/0660.html and appears to be meeting at TPAC 2011: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JanMar/0986.html ]]
16:53:56 Satish: it's fine to meet in person at TPAC whatever path we choose
16:56:11 Burn: do we agree that if we extend the XG, we'll start standards track work at a specific date, and decide which WG to join/start over the next month?
16:56:13 s/It's email only/It's is pretty much email only/
16:56:24 Bodell: agree
16:56:44 WebApps DOM events subgroup has telcons
16:56:58 Bjorn: extend to end of October means we sustain a high pace until then
16:57:34 Bjorn: agree with the approach
16:58:15 ... don't care about standard as such, care about developers having an interoperable API
16:59:15 Olli: extending XG sounds good. don't care whether it's a new or existing WG.
16:59:32 DanD: we should extend to October with clear agreement to move into a standards track
17:00:51 MichaelJ: we do need to go into a standards track. we've managed to get things together quickly, and if we don't go into a standards track soon, it will fracture
17:01:28 Burn: not clear that there's agreement from browser implementers about whether we should go into a WG track
17:01:57 Bjorn: not opposed to standardization. just not sure whtether it's the highest priority. but it won't hurt either
17:03:11 Olli: what we'll produce won't be good enough to be an interoperable specification.
17:03:59 DanD: Bjorn's indifference to the next step is well taken, but the report won't be good enough to implement anything interoperable
17:04:24 Bjorn: joining a w3c group isn't the only way to achieve this. the whatwg is, for example, an alternative
17:04:50 Bodell: for some companies and some reviewers, the w3c recommendation track is more important
17:05:17 Olli: agrees with Bjorn that it doesn't matter where the spec is written
17:05:44 Bjorn: agree to extend the XG, and to move to a wider group
17:06:29 Burn: anybody who's opinion on whether we extend depends on what the plan is for after?
17:06:43 ... [silence]
17:06:53 Bjorn: good question. not me
17:07:02 Satish: agree
17:07:46 Bodell: only if our decision was to transition to WG at the end of August, but it sounds like people are okay with extending
17:10:16 Burn: general agreement that we should extend the XG to wrap up the work. general timeframe would be end of October / early November.
17:10:47 Bodell: err on the long date
17:11:03 MichaelJ: watch out for publication moratorium
17:11:28 Bjorn: okay with end-October to end-December
17:13:45 topic: Discuss action items needed as a result of item 1
17:14:31 Burn: action items are on me. get the charter extended. talk to people in w3c about where to continue the work if it were to continue in the w3c
17:14:44 topic: Time permitting, discuss the Web API.
17:15:04 Bodell: we could discuss Olli's recent mail
17:15:21 Bjorn: could be get a status? there are a lot of open items on the API
17:16:20 Burn: I'll get to my item as soon as I can, not sure when
17:16:33 -Satish_Sampath
17:16:57 Debbie: have two items. sent an update this morning on one, still need to work on getting results back, but open to somebody else taking that (otherwise will take 2 weeks)
17:17:28 Charles: no progress this week, more next week
17:17:36 Bodell: Olli got his done
17:21:01 Olli: [discussion of his capture hooks spec]
17:21:18 Bodell: [general agreement from everybody]
17:22:18 Debbie: discuss design decision 29 - API to provide control over which parts of the captured audio are sent to the recognizer
17:22:21 zakim, drop me
17:22:21 Matt is being disconnected
17:22:22 -Matt
17:24:25 Bjorn: one use case is where you're capturing audio all the time, but something else in the UI places a boundary around when the user speaks (e.g. a button, visual prompt, etc)
17:24:46 Debbie: not redundant with design decision 28, which had to do with endpointing
17:25:10 Bjorn: anybody have a strong use case for this?
17:28:16 Debbie: could update the design decision
17:28:28 Bjorn: happy to not obey this design decision
17:28:56 Debbie: how do we retract a decision?
17:29:20 Bjorn: Dan puts a strike-through in the final report?
17:29:49 Burn: or not copy it into the official section. have some ideas for how to handle this sort of thing
17:31:00 -Michael_Johnston
17:31:11 -Bjorn_Bringert
17:31:14 -Patrick_Ehlen
17:31:16 - +1.408.359.aabb
17:31:16 -Milan_Young
17:31:17 -Dan_Druta
17:31:17 -Michael_Bodell
17:31:18 -Robert_Brown
17:31:19 -Olli_Pettay
17:31:22 -Debbie_Dahl
17:31:24 rrsagent, make log public
17:31:29 -Charles_Hemphill
17:31:31 rrsagent, draft minutes
17:31:31 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html burn
17:31:38 -Dan_Burnett
17:31:40 INC_(HTMLSPEECH)11:30AM has ended
17:31:42 Attendees were Dan_Burnett, Robert_Brown, Patrick_Ehlen, Milan_Young, Michael_Johnston, Olli_Pettay, Michael_Bodell, Matt, Debbie_Dahl, Dan_Druta, +1.650.279.aaaa,
17:31:44 ... Charles_Hemphill, Satish_Sampath, Bjorn_Bringert, Glen_Shires, +1.408.359.aabb
17:32:15 s/, +1.650.279.aaaa//
17:32:26 s/, +1.408.359.aabb//
17:32:45 s/Matt/Matt_Womer/
17:32:49 rrsagent, draft minutes
17:32:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html burn
17:34:04 s/I'm having VoIP server issues//
17:34:08 rrsagent, draft minutes
17:34:08 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/08/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html burn
17:36:15 zakim, bye
17:36:15 Zakim has left #htmlspeech
17:36:42 rrsagent, bye
17:36:42 I see no action items