17:20:10 RRSAgent has joined #htmlspeech
17:20:10 scribe:avery
17:20:10 Chair: Dan_Burnett, Michael_Bodell
17:20:10 Meeting: HTML Speech Incubator Group Face to Face day 2
17:20:10 Present: DanB, Michael, Glen, Matt, Robert, Patrick, Avery, Nagesh, Debbie, Bertha, Milan, Rahul, DanD
17:20:10 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-irc
17:20:16 Protocol issue 1: Minor typo.
17:21:52 Milan: What does the speechinputresult look like when the null event happens.
17:22:15 ... question the usefulness of having result at all.
17:22:29 robert: It should be undefined, meaning it's null.
17:22:30 Ralph has left #htmlspeech
17:23:24 mbodell: We've discussed this before and agreed to have it this way so let's not change.
17:23:45 ... discussion about what to null out in this case.
17:23:58 Milan: e.g. can you null out the third if there's a fourth?
17:24:12 mbodell: yes,
17:25:12 mbodell: More discussion about what to do in this case.
17:25:22 robert: Maybe a new event.
17:26:12 Mbodell: Maybe this should be a new event, when there's an empty message.
17:26:29 Burn: Clarify this is at protocol level or API level
17:26:35 mbodell: API level
17:27:15 Robert: There should be a new event with the compressed resultHistory array.
17:27:50 avery: what should we call this new event?
17:29:13 Burn: Requested that Mbodell clean up this issue about whether we need a new event for the empty message case (nulling out previous candidate reco).
17:30:14 Robert: This is not Protocol issue 1 itself, but is a result of it.
17:31:11 Milan: Maybe we need something like "reorder'" rather than "delete" for the new event.
17:32:14 Robert: Call it resulthistoryupdated event. It could be a can of worms because we would fire that for every reco.
17:33:45 action: mbodell to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details.
17:33:45 Sorry, couldn't find user - mbodell
17:33:58 s/Call/In the future we could develop a new pattern and call/
17:34:02 trackbot, list users
17:34:02 Sorry, matt, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
17:34:26 trackbot, status
17:34:49 action: Michael to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details.
17:34:49 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael
17:34:49 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mbodell2, mjohnsto)
17:34:57 action: mbodell2 to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details.
17:34:57 Created ACTION-5 - Create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details. [on Michael Bodell - due 2011-11-11].
17:35:11 Milan: I'd like Robert's example updated, especially to know how to use the waveform API.
17:36:02 Dand: We should move on to requirements.
17:36:46 Break time.
17:59:52 DanD has joined #htmlspeech
18:04:30 nagesh has joined #htmlspeech
18:08:55 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
18:16:30 scribenick: mbodell
18:17:12 topic: Architecture picture
18:17:31 Dand: Need something simple to show how the API + Protocol + web server + UA all fit together
18:18:19 which diagram?
18:18:25 mbodell: could you post a link?
18:22:51 Robert: Should have builtin and proxy as on the same level
18:23:01 Milan: but builtin can point to proxy
18:23:30 mbodell: really 2 different orhtogonal ideas: Use UA default or author specified; either of which could be on the same device or in the cloud
18:23:58 Glen: I disagree with TTS+ASR being specified in one thing as par t of remote speech service, I think they are different
18:24:18 Dand: Yeah too much detail, I'll just taqke out TTS + ASR and leave it at Remote Speech Service
18:24:44 Dan: Could put Audio Capture API as peer of WEB API
18:25:00 Dan: Default is a better word than builtin
18:26:38 ... [audio capture APIs] -> [Web API]
18:26:54 ... / |
18:27:26 ... [default] [Author Selected]
18:27:40 ... | X |
18:27:49 fab has joined #htmlspeech
18:27:51 ... [Local] [Remote]
18:28:15 Robert: But the default could actually be a hybrid of both local and remote
18:29:11 Matt: What is the purpose of the draing?
18:29:23 s/draing/drawing/
18:29:31 ... Can we start simple and then go to more complex?
18:29:38 Milan: I like Dan's drawing
18:30:01 Mbodell: Where does the protocol come in?
18:30:16 Dan: As the circle between Author Selected and local and remote
18:30:27 Glen: What are the dotted lines? Things we don't control?
18:30:56 Dan: Yeah, and audio capture API and defalut and the arrows to local and remote
18:31:07 thanks
18:31:27 rrsagent, draft minutes
18:31:27 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html matt
18:31:30 Dan: Change Author Selected to Speech Service Proxy
18:32:57 burn has joined #htmlspeech
18:33:18 nagesh has joined #htmlspeech
18:35:00 Group discusses how to make google take over all his browsers
18:35:40 s/take/not take/
18:35:46 topic: Requirements
18:36:14 dan: Here are the requirements that the group as a whole started working on
18:37:13 Link to document: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/finalreport/XGR-htmlspeech.html#requirements
18:37:33 dan: My suggestion was to take these and include them, perhaps as an agenda
18:37:45 Robert: My suggestion was to reword requirements in place
18:38:38 Dan: What about when a requirement becomes two different requirements
18:38:58 Robert: we could just note it with those
18:39:17 Milan: Do we even need these, couldn't we just stick with design decisions
18:40:24 Robert: I think we do because, it is the only paper trail we have to the voting we did on prioritization
18:40:55 Dan: I think I like Roberts plan better
18:41:50 Robert: Marc went through and did one pass, and then Marc, Milan, Robert, Michael and others did one around August
18:42:03 action: Robert to fish out the latest version of that
18:42:03 Created ACTION-6 - Fish out the latest version of that [on Robert Brown - due 2011-11-11].
18:42:15 Dan: That was just for protocol work
18:43:01 Dan: What about for web api?
18:43:35 MBodell: We originally had Raj on tap for that, but he had family issues so then we distributed it to everyone, only Debbie had any so there are some from here proposal
18:43:51 Dan: Anyone concerned about me using that to consolodate, I'm not
18:43:57 Group: No one has concerns
18:45:02 Debbie's document http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Aug/att-0011/ASRPropertiesAPI.html
18:45:18 Topic: Design Decisions
18:45:56 Dan: I think each of the things we talked about in requirements also include some design decissions
18:46:42 Robert: What about something like 74 "Bjorn's email", that is tough to tell since Bjorn has sent a lot of email
18:46:54 Dan: I could just take this out
18:47:15 Robert: What about linking to email
18:47:27 Glen: The nice thing about that is you can see the archives and see the linking to other threads of discussions, etc.
18:48:39 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011May/0030.html Bjorn's mail for requirement 75
18:48:40 Dan: I don't want to go down the path of linking each design discssion to an email thread
18:49:26 Glen: not for every one, but just when appropriate
18:49:33 Dan: Yeah, when appropriate is fine
18:49:55 Dan: There are some new one's at the bottom
18:50:38 Dan: These (86+) were ones that we'd talked about in phone calls, but had never made it to earlier drafts of the final report
18:56:28 Mbodell: we did implement these
18:56:46 dan: I don't think we implemented 88
18:57:02 mbodell: we did for nomatch, but not for noinput, noinput is an eror
18:57:16 s/88/89/
18:57:22 Milan: Do we have a timeout parameter?
18:57:32 Mbodell: No, but can use your own JS timer.
18:57:45 Robert: Should we add noinput as a separate event and not an error
18:57:55 Milan: I like that, should also add the property
18:58:17 Glen: How do you define what noinput means? There is always some noice
18:58:30 Avery: On speech starting that stops the timing
18:58:41 Glen: But you as an author can track that with these events
18:59:46 Milan: But cleaner to do that with a parameter
19:00:11 MBodell: we don't today have that, but we are discussing that
19:00:21 Robert: I think we should add it, it is a very common UI
19:00:30 Glen: I think we could add the parameter, not so sure about the event
19:02:20 Milan: Why not have them?
19:02:34 Glen: Why not just put the noinput into the nomatch event
19:02:47 dan: Not sure
19:03:13 Group: Agreed to add the timeout parameter
19:03:25 Group: Agreed to add timeout event
19:03:45 Dan: Need someone to add text
19:04:12 glen has joined #htmlspeech
19:04:16 Glen: Why not just define this event as speechstart event hasn't happened in a certain length of time
19:04:51 and define the timeout this way as well
19:06:29 action: Dan to add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't)
19:06:29 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Dan
19:06:29 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dburnett, ddruta)
19:07:51 perhaps named speechStartTimeout
19:08:15 action: dan add end to the reco element
19:08:15 Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - dan
19:08:15 Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dburnett, ddruta)
19:09:19 and onnospeech event
19:09:20 group: Agrees to parameter is speechStartTimeout and event is nospeech
19:11:21 action: dburnett to add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't)
19:11:21 Created ACTION-7 - Add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't) [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
19:11:59 action: dburnett add end to the reco element
19:12:00 Created ACTION-8 - Add end to the reco element [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
19:12:49 action: dburnett add the sentence about weights from dd90 into the spec where we describe weights
19:12:50 Created ACTION-9 - Add the sentence about weights from dd90 into the spec where we describe weights [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
19:13:03 dan: I think we are done with that
19:13:18 Topic: Revisit the picture from Dan
19:13:41 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0049.html
19:13:43 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0049.html DanD's Diagram
19:16:54 mbodell: Can we relabel speech service proxy as author selected speech service
19:17:19 dand: No the arrow from Speech web api to speech service proxy is where the author selected is
19:17:51 ... we could also label the speech web api to default with UA selected
19:18:40 Robert_ has joined #htmlspeech
19:19:25 I think this is the latest redraft of requirements from the protocol group: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Jul/att-0023/Protocol_requirements_draft_-_RB.htm
19:19:28 Glen: How about Default Speech and Speech Service with the labels of UA selected and user agent
19:20:06 why is default out of scope?
19:20:21 it is not more out of scope than remote speech service
19:22:43 Agreed
19:22:46 Olli: The remote speech service is out of scope, it is the protocol that is in scope
19:22:54 Milan: Agreed
19:23:49 Milan: Didn't agree that default was in scope
19:24:27 Olli: thinks they are equal, fine if default is out as long as it is the same from remote
19:24:39 Dan: actually the speech service proxy is out of socpe
19:25:59 mbodell: Yes, we used to have conceptual boxes for protocol and api and the boxes were in the scope, but we've moved the stuff to the arrows, so now the boxes, except the speech web api are all out of scope
19:27:42 Group: Obvious, but the user agent and device are out of scope too, but probably so obvious don't need to do it
19:28:19 mbodell: could invert the dotted lines and dashed lines
19:28:25 dan: Don't like that
19:31:14 group waits for mail
19:36:42 We break for lunch
20:01:46 -> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0051.html Updated diagram take 2
20:01:48 Meeting; HTML Speech XG F2F, Day 2
20:09:59 -Olli_Pettay
20:23:34 Avery has joined #htmlspeech
20:46:23 Found a bug in one of the examples in Section 7.1.8
20:47:32 The example is "Hide possible graphical UI related to reco element if permission is denied"
20:48:12 mbodell has joined #htmlspeech
20:48:18 Avery: what is the bug?
20:48:30 NOT_AUTHORIZED is outside the comment but should be inside it.
20:48:38 The first comment in the sample.
20:49:07 indeed
20:49:12 It's a nit but we should fix it.
20:49:17 yup
20:51:09 +[IPcaller]
20:51:19 Zakim, [IPcaller] is Olli_Pettay
20:51:19 +Olli_Pettay; got it
21:00:51 Scribe: Matt
21:01:44 Topic: Planning
21:02:13 burn: 2 areas of planning we need to discuss: after the group is finished and what the group needs to do to finish.
21:02:25 burn: I would like to see W3C create a new WG to work on this effort. Why?
21:03:12 burn: I don't think there is another group right now that could actually productively take this work. The HTML WG is severely overloaded. Work can happen in that group, I don't think you actually get any additional productive participation than you would get from your own WG. No standing teleconference times, or anything.
21:03:25 burn: It's probably good for small features, you can start a thread and come to a conclusion in a short amount of time.
21:04:02 burn: WebApps is another consideration, and it seems reasonable, but from what I understand WebApps is overloaded and it's charter is in two parts, a general part that could include our work, and a very specific part saying what they'll do exactly.
21:04:11 burn: They would have to recharter and the work is quite different from what they do today.
21:04:20 burn: It could work there, but I think there's a reluctance by the group to take on new work.
21:04:56 burn: Anyway, I think having our own WG is the best way to be able to start relatively quickly, scope the IP discussions enough that lawyers won't take forever to let us join the group.
21:05:12 burn: It will also make it easier to get the work exposure.
21:05:16 Milan: And what about VBWG?
21:05:50 burn: When this XG started, there was intense interest in it explicitly not being in VBWG.
21:05:55 burn: So, I never really considered it.
21:06:11 mbodell: MMI is another candidate, but they don't seem to have the participation we need.
21:06:24 burn: I don't think it'd be appropriate as the sole goal of the MMI WG.
21:06:33 glenn: How hard is it to create a WG?
21:06:42 matt: Write a charter
21:06:58 matt: ... which is straightforward
21:07:11 ... submit to w3c management
21:07:18 ... goes to AC for a vote
21:07:26 ... which takes 4-6 weeks
21:07:33 what about protocol? W3C or IETF?
21:07:34 ... minor edits
21:08:15 ... mainly depends if we have agreement in this room
21:09:11 Dan: To address Ollie and Avery's point, yes protocol isn't an easy fit with W3C
21:09:42 Matt: What about websockets?
21:10:11 ... probably very little resistance to moving protocol to IETF
21:10:35 burn: They definitely consider Web Sockets a transport, so it'd be a good candidate for IETF.
21:10:49 burn: Working through a charter, we'll have to find if anyone in the XG right now wants it to happen at W3C?
21:10:56 burn: That's something we'd have to decide as part of the charter work.
21:11:19 burn: My initial thought was that we would say that we would work together with it at IETF.
21:11:27 Avery: There's other details about the audio in/out.
21:12:20 matt: There is a part of a charter that details interdependencies. I put VBWG, HTML, AudioWG, WebRTC, WebApps, and others.
21:12:26 rahul: Web and TV.
21:12:28 matt: I'll add that too.
21:12:38 Milan: Google would be amenable to having it be a new WG?
21:12:48 Glen: I think we'd be interested in it.
21:12:53 Milan: But Bjorn wanted it in WebApps.
21:13:21 burn: The big issue was they wanted Web developers participating. If that happens, it's good.
21:13:40 burn: Talking around the w3c it seems that whether it's in WebApps or not is not significant to decide if that happens.
21:13:46 burn: Not sure Bjorn believes that.
21:13:55 burn: But we should make sure we get Web developers.
21:14:11 Glenn: We don't want it in a group that bogs down and takes forever.
21:14:19 Glenn: What I liked about having our own WG is that we can streamline the process.
21:14:53 Glenn: And having our own WG means not having to educate another WG on speech again.
21:15:14 burn: We'd have to educate them, and then convince them that the work belongs there. It's not easy.
21:15:27 dand: And getting them to prioritize the work.
21:15:37 burn: One of the questions would be are there staffing concerns that could affect the creation of the WG?
21:15:58 burn: This isn't something we have to decide, but where would this work live, where would the group live?
21:17:29 matt: We have this domain structure that really just kind of reflects our management structure. My gut says that the work would end up in the UbiWeb domain alongside the VBWG and Geolocation, etc.
21:17:40 Glenn: Is this WG a sufficient number of companies?
21:17:46 burn: It's sufficient but --
21:17:54 mbodell: We'd certainly rather have more.
21:19:13 mbodell: The charter also applies to what we can work on, so we can't move into other spaces. It's what we bring to lawyers to do patent evaluation stuff.
21:19:23 burn: The more clearly focused the work the better.
21:19:58 burn: I think the work of our XG really informed the focus.
21:20:16 I think Mozilla would participate
21:20:34 burn: Straw poll, do you think if a WG were to form for this, would your company be interested in joining?
21:20:36
21:21:23 burn: Ollie has some of the best input on end user protection, stuff we really need.
21:21:39 s/ie /i /
21:21:54 burn: Matt and I sat after lunch and began hacking on a charter.
21:22:12 burn: Activities after this week, what else?
21:22:13