HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference -- 17 Nov 2011

<burn> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Date: 17 November 2011

<smaug> that is me

<scribe> Scribe: Milan

<burn> ScribeNick: Milan

<burn> Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0072.html

Review final report

Dan: Content complete
... but a few editorial nits remain
... contentfull changes have been available for public review

Debbie: I'd like to review changes

Bjorn: Add discussion about future working group to agenda today

<burn> first set of changes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0067.html

<burn> second list of changes: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0071.html

Burn: Any questions?
... OK, no questions

Debbie: Need more explanation behind DanD's diagram.
... but maybe not necessary because it'
... it is just explanitory

Burn: Probably a major effort to add detailed wording

Debbie: Perhaps I can take a look to find low-hanging fruit that brings clairity

Burn: Need to stop edits in about one week

Glen: One sample has allot of psudeo code
... and TODOs

Burn: Agree

Michael: I will look at that example

<glen> sample is "Speech Enabled Email Client"

<glen> particularly onMicClicked method

Satish's proposal to move methods into collections

<burn> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0064.html

Burn: I'm comfortable either way
... other comments?

Milan: Nice to be able to add collection as a whole

Satish: Yes, this was part of the design

Dan: I also like this

<smaug> looks ok to me

Dan: Objections to making this change?

<ddahl1> i think this is a good idea

Dan: OK, I'll make the change

Next steps

Dan: Editorial cleanup and short summary
... questions?

Bjourn: Good work so far
... Need input from all browser vendors
... Google will not join working group unless all browser vendors also join
... And bring our work to the attention to the HTML working groups
... Need Apple and Opera as well as Mozilla, Chrome, and IE

MBodell: Will not get participation if going to WhatWG
... IE participation

Bjorn: Need more browser discussion, not more speech discussion

Dan: And also web developer participation
... best feedback will probably result from a more focused group

Bjorn: Yes, as long as all vendors are present

Satish: Haven't heard from Opera and Apple

Dan: Yes, I've tried
... Charter proposal will be circulated, and we can add strong wording

MichaelJ: I made a request to Apple
... perhaps we could be happy with 4/5

Bjorn: Then need to take discussion to where they are

Dan: This is a significant change in position from Google

Bjorn: Continued work is almost pointless without browser vendords

Statish: For example, if we proceed in a silo, we will not know if what we produce will be palitable

Bjorn: Yes, will be a waste to flesh out details if fundamentals are not strong

MichaelJ: Most significant point is the reco element wrt the HTML WG
... But JS may not produce as much feedback

Bjorn: To be clear, I'm not referring to protocol. And JS API is included with declarative.
... we'll get good feedback when we post XG results

Dan: Purpose of group is to give a home to feedback requests
... and will be best in a dedicated group

Michael: Nobody is against posting this
... to a location of choosing

Dan: The question is where to handle that feedback
... HTML WG is a good major source of comments

Bjorn: But where does the discussion happen?

Ollie: Do you expect that HTML WG will produce a separate specification or incorporate into existing spec?

Bjorn: Don't care

Satish: Should be left to the editor

Ollie: HTML spec is too large, and this will be lost
... so prefer a dedicated spec

Dan: I'm involved in WebRTC
... similar dicussions
... and there is a large amount of independent feedback
... so it's a framework that is functional

Debbie: What about an interest group that forms in the interim?

Bjorn: Yes, good idea to take a pause for feedback, but maybe don't need formal structure

Michael: Want to see this on a standards track
... so don't want it in an informal group

Debbie: Interest group is a formal W3C structure, but agree not a standards track

Dan: OK with Bjorn's idea as long as we don't creat a spec

MIchael: Feedback is different that standarizing

Bjorn: Let's keep XG, and its main purpose should be to collect feedback

Michael: Do not want to move discussion outside W3C

Bjorn: Would like to include WhatWG

Michael: Want to start a new WG for that

Dan: WhatWG doesn't include all browser vendors

Bjorn: We can separate topics of feedback of spec building

Michael: Fine as long as discussion doesn't build specs

Dan: WebRTC and its own WG. List is monitored by WhatWG
... interesting WhatWG discussion is brought to the attention of the WG
... and the Google chair of the group has support of Hixie
... this is a working process
... so how is our group different?

<smaug> Hmm, is it possible that Apple doesn't participate this work because of IP issues ? If that is the case, this work couldn't go to HTML WG

Satish: Perhaps because our group doesn't touch because of declaritive

Dan: Charter of working group forces this class of discussion by all major browser vendors

Bjorn: Most important thing is wide feedback

MichaelJ: Can run into problems with focusing too much on feedback, because bogs progress
... but W3C does require addressing feedback as approach last call

MichaelB: External discussion is fine, but spec work must take place in W3C

Dan: Dicussion is fine, but decisions need to be made in SDL
... SDO
... For example VoiceXML forum and VBWG

Bjorn: Need commitment to listen to external feedback

Michael: That's already part of W3C

Dan: Must address every public comment
... tracked and recorded
... disagreements are escalated

Michael: As long as comments are sent to the W3C

Bjorn: Google would like to think about this more internally
... can we discuss on mailing list?

Dan: We are almost out of time
... may need to schedule an emergency call
... recommend contacting Harold A from WebRTC

Michael: Please also proof the draft

Glen: Schedule call for December 1st.
... or at least reserve it

MichaelJ: Correction to minutes
... comment was that we shouldn't worry about not addressing feedback within W3C. Safety checks are in place.

- DRAFT -

HTML Speech Incubator Group Teleconference

17 Nov 2011

Attendees

Contents

Review final report

Satish's proposal to move methods into collections

Next steps

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output