See also: IRC log
<matt> scribe:avery
Protocol issue 1: Minor typo.
Milan: What does the speechinputresult look like when the null event happens.
... question the usefulness of having result at all.
robert: It should be undefined, meaning it's null.
mbodell: We've discussed this before and agreed to have it this way so let's not change.
... discussion about what to null out in this case.
Milan: e.g. can you null out the third if there's a fourth?
mbodell: yes,
... More discussion about what to do in this case.
robert: Maybe a new event.
Mbodell: Maybe this should be a new event, when there's an empty message.
Burn: Clarify this is at protocol level or API level
mbodell: API level
Robert: There should be a new event with the compressed resultHistory array.
avery: what should we call this new event?
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).
Robert: This is not Protocol issue 1 itself, but is a result of it.
Milan: Maybe we need something like "reorder'" rather than "delete" for the new event.
Robert: In the future we could develop a new pattern and call it resulthistoryupdated event. It could be a can of worms because we would fire that for every reco.
<scribe> ACTION: mbodell to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - mbodell
<matt> trackbot, list users
<trackbot> Sorry, matt, I don't understand 'trackbot, list users'. Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc for help
<matt> trackbot, status
<matt> ACTION: Michael to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Michael
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mbodell2, mjohnsto)
<matt> ACTION: mbodell2 to create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Create the new event for this case. See discussion above for details. [on Michael Bodell - due 2011-11-11].
Milan: I'd like Robert's example updated, especially to know how to use the waveform API.
Dand: We should move on to requirements.
Break time.
<mbodell> scribenick: mbodell
Dand: Need something simple to show how the API + Protocol + web server + UA all fit together
<smaug> which diagram?
<smaug> mbodell: could you post a link?
Robert: Should have builtin and proxy as on the same level
Milan: but builtin can point to proxy
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
Glen: I disagree with TTS+ASR being specified in one thing as par t of remote speech service, I think they are different
Dand: Yeah too much detail, I'll just taqke out TTS + ASR and leave it at Remote Speech Service
Dan: Could put Audio Capture API as peer of WEB API
... Default is a better word than builtin
... [audio capture APIs] -> [Web API]
... / |
... [default] [Author Selected]
... | X |
... [Local] [Remote]
Robert: But the default could actually be a hybrid of both local and remote
Matt: What is the purpose of the drawing?
... Can we start simple and then go to more complex?
Milan: I like Dan's drawing
Mbodell: Where does the protocol come in?
Dan: As the circle between Author Selected and local and remote
Glen: What are the dotted lines? Things we don't control?
Dan: Yeah, and audio capture API and defalut and the arrows to local and remote
<smaug> thanks
Dan: Change Author Selected to Speech Service Proxy
Group discusses how to make google not take over all his browsers
dan: Here are the requirements that the group as a whole started working on
Link to document: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/htmlspeech/finalreport/XGR-htmlspeech.html#requirements
dan: My suggestion was to take these and include them, perhaps as an agenda
Robert: My suggestion was to reword requirements in place
Dan: What about when a requirement becomes two different requirements
Robert: we could just note it with those
Milan: Do we even need these, couldn't we just stick with design decisions
Robert: I think we do because, it is the only paper trail we have to the voting we did on prioritization
Dan: I think I like Roberts plan better
Robert: Marc went through and did one pass, and then Marc, Milan, Robert, Michael and others did one around August
<scribe> ACTION: Robert to fish out the latest version of that [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-6 - Fish out the latest version of that [on Robert Brown - due 2011-11-11].
Dan: That was just for protocol work
... What about for web api?
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
Dan: Anyone concerned about me using that to consolodate, I'm not
Group: No one has concerns
Debbie's document http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Aug/att-0011/ASRPropertiesAPI.html
Dan: I think each of the things we talked about in requirements also include some design decissions
Robert: What about something like 74 "Bjorn's email", that is tough to tell since Bjorn has sent a lot of email
Dan: I could just take this out
Robert: What about linking to email
Glen: The nice thing about that is you can see the archives and see the linking to other threads of discussions, etc.
<matt> Bjorn's mail for requirement 75
Dan: I don't want to go down the path of linking each design discssion to an email thread
Glen: not for every one, but just when appropriate
Dan: Yeah, when appropriate is fine
... There are some new one's at the bottom
... These (86+) were ones that we'd talked about in phone calls, but had never made it to earlier drafts of the final report
Mbodell: we did implement these
dan: I don't think we implemented 89
mbodell: we did for nomatch, but not for noinput, noinput is an eror
Milan: Do we have a timeout parameter?
Mbodell: No, but can use your own JS timer.
Robert: Should we add noinput as a separate event and not an error
Milan: I like that, should also add the property
Glen: How do you define what noinput means? There is always some noice
Avery: On speech starting that stops the timing
Glen: But you as an author can track that with these events
Milan: But cleaner to do that with a parameter
MBodell: we don't today have that, but we are discussing that
Robert: I think we should add it, it is a very common UI
Glen: I think we could add the parameter, not so sure about the event
Milan: Why not have them?
Glen: Why not just put the noinput into the nomatch event
dan: Not sure
Group: Agreed to add the timeout parameter
... Agreed to add timeout event
Dan: Need someone to add text
Glen: Why not just define this event as speechstart event hasn't happened in a certain length of time
<glen> and define the timeout this way as well
<scribe> ACTION: Dan to add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Dan
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dburnett, ddruta)
<glen> perhaps named speechStartTimeout
<scribe> ACTION: dan add end to the reco element [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - dan
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. dburnett, ddruta)
<glen> and onnospeech event
group: Agrees to parameter is speechStartTimeout and event is nospeech
<scribe> ACTION: dburnett to add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-7 - Add it to the spec (mbodell to do it if he doesn't) [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
<scribe> ACTION: dburnett add end to the reco element [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-8 - Add end to the reco element [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
<scribe> ACTION: dburnett add the sentence about weights from dd90 into the spec where we describe weights [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Add the sentence about weights from dd90 into the spec where we describe weights [on Daniel Burnett - due 2011-11-11].
dan: I think we are done with that
<glen> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0049.html
<matt> DanD's Diagram
mbodell: Can we relabel speech service proxy as author selected speech service
dand: No the arrow from Speech web api to speech service proxy is where the author selected is
... we could also label the speech web api to default with UA selected
<Robert_> 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
Glen: How about Default Speech and Speech Service with the labels of UA selected and user agent
<smaug> why is default out of scope?
<smaug> it is not more out of scope than remote speech service
<Milan> Agreed
Olli: The remote speech service is out of scope, it is the protocol that is in scope
Milan: Agreed
... Didn't agree that default was in scope
Olli: thinks they are equal, fine if default is out as long as it is the same from remote
Dan: actually the speech service proxy is out of socpe
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
Group: Obvious, but the user agent and device are out of scope too, but probably so obvious don't need to do it
mbodell: could invert the dotted lines and dashed lines
dan: Don't like that
group waits for mail
We break for lunch
<matt> Updated diagram take 2
<matt> Meeting; HTML Speech XG F2F, Day 2
<Avery> Found a bug in one of the examples in Section 7.1.8
<Avery> The example is "Hide possible graphical UI related to reco element if permission is denied"
<smaug> Avery: what is the bug?
<Avery> NOT_AUTHORIZED is outside the comment but should be inside it.
<Avery> The first comment in the sample.
<smaug> indeed
<Avery> It's a nit but we should fix it.
<smaug> yup
<matt> Scribe: Matt
burn: 2 areas of planning we need to discuss: after the group is finished and what the group needs to do to finish.
... I would like to see W3C create a new WG to work on this effort. Why?
... 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.
... It's probably good for small features, you can start a thread and come to a conclusion in a short amount of time.
... 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.
... They would have to recharter and the work is quite different from what they do today.
... It could work there, but I think there's a reluctance by the group to take on new work.
... 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.
... It will also make it easier to get the work exposure.
Milan: And what about VBWG?
burn: When this XG started, there was intense interest in it explicitly not being in VBWG.
... So, I never really considered it.
mbodell: MMI is another candidate, but they don't seem to have the participation we need.
burn: I don't think it'd be appropriate as the sole goal of the MMI WG.
glenn: How hard is it to create a WG?
<Milan> matt: Write a charter
<Milan> matt: ... which is straightforward
<Milan> ... submit to w3c management
<Milan> ... goes to AC for a vote
<Milan> ... which takes 4-6 weeks
<smaug> what about protocol? W3C or IETF?
<Milan> ... minor edits
<Milan> ... mainly depends if we have agreement in this room
<Milan> Dan: To address Ollie and Avery's point, yes protocol isn't an easy fit with W3C
<Milan> Matt: What about websockets?
<Milan> ... probably very little resistance to moving protocol to IETF
burn: They definitely consider Web Sockets a transport, so it'd be a good candidate for IETF.
... Working through a charter, we'll have to find if anyone in the XG right now wants it to happen at W3C?
... That's something we'd have to decide as part of the charter work.
... My initial thought was that we would say that we would work together with it at IETF.
Avery: There's other details about the audio in/out.
matt: There is a part of a charter that details interdependencies. I put VBWG, HTML, AudioWG, WebRTC, WebApps, and others.
rahul: Web and TV.
matt: I'll add that too.
Milan: Google would be amenable to having it be a new WG?
Glen: I think we'd be interested in it.
Milan: But Bjorn wanted it in WebApps.
burn: The big issue was they wanted Web developers participating. If that happens, it's good.
... Talking around the w3c it seems that whether it's in WebApps or not is not significant to decide if that happens.
... Not sure Bjorn believes that.
... But we should make sure we get Web developers.
Glenn: We don't want it in a group that bogs down and takes forever.
... What I liked about having our own WG is that we can streamline the process.
... And having our own WG means not having to educate another WG on speech again.
burn: We'd have to educate them, and then convince them that the work belongs there. It's not easy.
dand: And getting them to prioritize the work.
burn: One of the questions would be are there staffing concerns that could affect the creation of the WG?
... This isn't something we have to decide, but where would this work live, where would the group live?
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.
Glenn: Is this WG a sufficient number of companies?
burn: It's sufficient but --
mbodell: We'd certainly rather have more.
... 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.
burn: The more clearly focused the work the better.
... I think the work of our XG really informed the focus.
<smaug> I think Mozilla would participate
burn: Straw poll, do you think if a WG were to form for this, would your company be interested in joining?
<unanimous>
burn: Olli has some of the best input on end user protection, stuff we really need.
... Matt and I sat after lunch and began hacking on a charter.
... Activities after this week, what else?
Robert_: What's the IETF plan?
burn: At the last IETF meeting, I spoke to some people there about it. I explained what we were doing and what the work was, and gave a headsup.
... The reason to do that is that at IETF you start with a BOF session. Everyone sits around and works on a charter.
... Oddly enough those session started as a way to get people together to chat, but now in order for them to be a success you have to work months in advance to get a charter going and get everyone to agree.
... I am willing to help anyone who would like to do that, but I would really really appreciate that if this is something you would like to see happen that you could find your existing IETF representative/s and let them know about this.
... I'll speak with them and work together with them.
mbodell: Those happen at the F2Fs?
burn: Yes, not the one next week, but the one in March in Paris.
... So, now would be the time to talk to someone at your company who is going to that and put me in contact with them and we can have initial discussions at the meeting.
Robert_: You've mentioned Bernard yesterday.
burn: I talked to him at the last meeting, but you should talk to him directly.
Robert_: He's in the building next to us, we should go talk to him.
mbodell: How does the structure and organization of the IETF compare to W3C? I know their wiki page says there are no members of the IETF.
burn: IETF there are no organizations, everyone represents themselves.
... Largely a meritocracy.
... Discussions are primarily on mailing lists. You can do everything via email.
... Any decisions that are made at F2F's are tentative until approved on the mailing list.
... IETF meetings tend to just be 2 hours long, and that's all the time you get for a week.
... Individuals submit "internet drafts" and say "hey, this should be a standard"
... That is one of the possible ways to get work started.
Glenn: When are internet drafts submitted? Presumably have authors listed with their company affiliations, correct?
burn: Yes.
... Drafts go in -- people tend to participate on their personal accounts btw.
... There is no membership, anyone can join anything at IETF.
mbodell: What about IP?
burn: At every IETF meeting, they present a Note Well document that has some standard language that approximately says: Anything you contribute by speaking, typing or any information you volunteer then IETF owns it unless you disclose otherwise.
... It's pretty strongly worded and quite clear.
... When people send drafts, like I mentioned, there are still tons of internet drafts and people say "let's use this one as a starting point" and if there is rough consensus the group adopts it as a WG document and it changes from having an individuals name to a WGs name and proceeds on spec track.
... IETF works on "rough consensus" and "running code". They don't like votes.
... Maybe you are sitting in the room and your boss is sitting in the room with you, and you have differing opinions and are uncomfortable raising your hand. People will hum instead.
... It's often very clear.
... Large amounts on both sides means no consensus. A large amount on one side and few on the other means rough consensus.
... If people agree and implementations come out, it's a go.
... IETF very highly values implementation experience.
... I don't plan to do anything in particular right now with the protocol.
... If someone wants to see it go forward, I am happy to help. If you have reps there I am happy to work with them. Voxeo likes this work overall, and for me to say "yeah, me too" isn't that hard. Right now, I'd be the person doing it, and I don't have enough cycles to create it myself.
Robert_: We'll talk to Bernard Aboba on Tuesday and see if he's interested.
burn: Google has a number of people involved in IETF, from Google Harvald, the co-chair of WebRTC is also at IETF.
mbodell: I think if we are doing the protocol we should try to kick it off at the same time.
burn: Some of you were talking to Cullen, he's also an IETF guy.
<Milan> Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
burn: Anyone have opinions on teleconferences between now and the end of the group.
mbodell: If we don't take a week off next week, there are 3 weeks before the end of November. 10th, 17th, 24th. 24th is Thanksgiving Day.
... If we were on a normal schedule, we'd only have the 10th and the 17th.
... I think we want to finish with the conference on the 17th.
burn: Yes.
DanD: In terms of going beyond commitment to this work. Are there any plans to prototype what we have here before we go to a WG or not?
mbodell: We're not really standardizing anything here.
DanD: There are solutions already, adapting the solutions is as much as changing what you have with or without an intermediary step. If we can have a way to start evangelizing the concept, within the community in general with a working solution?
burn: Early on Google said they had implemented the "HTML Speech Standard"
DanD: Not how we defined it though.
mbodell: It's still not a standard though, so have to be careful to say that.
burn: I can't answer that question.
Robert_: Undoubtedly we'll have prototypes.
burn: Part of the Recommendation process is that there are implementations.
mbodell: There are two ways this stuff gets done. From the standards POV it gets done later in the standardization process. That said, the industry is always innovating and prototyping all the time and are free to do so.
burn: When you issue the CR document it also says it's a call for implementations. It doesn't mean that people can't implement before that. Once you get to LC you really should be implementing, long before CR.
mbodell: So, the timeline. Call on the 10th and the 17th. Going to be a lot of work, but the 17th should be the last call we have.
... Hopefully everyone will sign off on it then, or figure out small changes over email.
matt: You can also work not he charter in parallel.
burn: It's not a deliverable of the XG, so you probably won't see it on the list, as that might be inappropriate.
... Michael and I have to get all of the changes in before the next call on the 10th.
mbodell: If you submit any changes or examples, it would be really good if you could double check and get them as ready as possible. We can work this on the list too don't wait until the call.
burn: Please do work on this now, as mbodell and I will be.
... In addition to the report we have to provide a few short paragraphs of what we were about and what we did and what we might do next.
... I'll be working on that, it may go the list or not, maybe a version. Depends on timing. Keep in mind that this isn't a document that is going to be edited over and over.
mbodell: If no one objects, two weeks from today we're done. Final report and summary are sent out.
burn: After that, we're done.
matt: You can leave this ml open for a while, but you can also have an ml start up when you get the charter firmed up.
burn: Sounds good. What should we call it? HTML Speech?
DanD: When it came to markup, we said no markup, but we say "HTML Speech"?
mbodell: We do have speech bindings.
DanD: When I hear HTML Speech, I think markup.
burn: It's been argued the other way that HTML 5 is more about the JavaScript than the markup.
mbodell: I think it is the appropriate name, even if it's not markup.
... It is part of the HTML ecosystem.
nagesh: HTML 5 Speech?
<objections>
burn: S.peech E.vents E.xtending C.ommon H.tml
... I think we are done.
... Thank you!
<mbodell> Mbodell: S.peech P.rotocol for E.vents and E.xtending C.ommon H.tml == Speech
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Call/In the future we could develop a new pattern and call/ Succeeded: s/draing/drawing/ Succeeded: s/take/not take/ Succeeded: s/88/89/ Succeeded: s/ie /i / Succeeded: s/he call/the call/ Found Scribe: avery Inferring ScribeNick: avery WARNING: No scribe lines found matching previous ScribeNick pattern: <mbodell> ... Found ScribeNick: mbodell Found Scribe: Matt Inferring ScribeNick: matt Scribes: avery, Matt ScribeNicks: mbodell, avery, matt Default Present: tpac, Olli_Pettay Present: DanB Michael Glen Matt Robert Patrick Avery Nagesh Debbie Bertha Milan Rahul DanD Got date from IRC log name: 04 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/04-htmlspeech-minutes.html People with action items: add dan dburnett end mbodell mbodell2 michael robert[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]