See also: IRC log
<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
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
<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
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.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: Milan Found ScribeNick: Milan Default Present: Milan_Young, Michael_Bodell, Dan_Burnett, Olli_Pettay, Debbie_Dahl, Bjorn_Bringert, Satish_Sampath, Charles_Hemphill, +1.650.253.aaaa Present: Milan_Young Michael_Bodell Dan_Burnett Olli_Pettay Debbie_Dahl Bjorn_Bringert Satish_Sampath Charles_Hemphill Glen_Shires Dan_Druta Michael_Johnston Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-htmlspeech/2011Nov/0072.html Found Date: 17 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/17-htmlspeech-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]