Meeting minutes
Agenda
First Public Working Draft: Specification for Spoken Presentation document CFC
Irfan: We made changes. Sent to Becky who has more recommendations. Add more background, examples, etc. Irfan made changes and sent back to Becky.
Irfan: Change name, short URL needed.
Irfan: Current Name is Technical Approach
<Roy> Pronunciation-in-html
Janina: TTS-HTML or HTML-TTS?
Mark: Spoken HTML or HTML Spoken
Neil: prefer Spoken HTML
Irfan: Spoken-HTML?
<Roy> spoken-html
<Roy> +1
Consensus is Spoken-HTML
<Irfan> https://
Irfan: There was limited information. Irfan added a paragraph.
Janina: no consistent approach that can be relied on across browsers
Consistent approach that can be relied on across user agents (browsers, assistive technologies, voice assistants, etc.)
Neil: we make some assumptions that SSML is not the solution. In the into we have to say why.
Mark: pull out the info from the gap analysis.
Janina: add as a second paragraph to abstract
Neil: later on have more explanantion
Irfan: background, second section, provides some information
Neil: nothing says that all of SSML is not needed. Need to say why we are using the subset.
Janina: will write a draft
Janina: we need a gentle way to say that browsers didn't implement SSML
Mark: gap analysis indicates has the "why'
Irfan: Status to be updated by Roy
Irfan: Intro has been updated. Included feedback. Do we need to do anything more?
Irfan: Background section, adding more info to Abstract, only other concern, examples in section 3
Irfan: Content not sufficient. We need to add some details about the approach.
Irfan: Need to add info for those who do not understand SSML
Mark: Gap analysis has description of functional areas
Irfan: do we need to add info directly or just refer to the Gap Analysis document?
Janina: if it helps, keep it in document, hyperlink is for knowing more.
Janina: document itself needs to provide understanding
Irfan: it appears we need to restructure the section and add info from Gap Analysis.
Mark: each attribute section or add a simplified version of section 2 of gap analysis?
Janina: the simplified content
Irfan: The third paragraph -- the sentence starts with the example. Do we need more explanation?
Mark: we don't need to explain all the features, that is done my SSML spec.
Irfan: What would make it more clear to readers who do not understand SSML?
Mark: suggest adding a new section before the current section 3 which is drawn from categories..
Neil: this goes back to the gap analysis
Irfan: I will update document and then share.
Irfan: Another point, data-SSML-say as-*, could use a better description
Irfan: some attributes are in SSML 1.0 but not in SSML 1.1. We may need to reference SSML 1.0.
Mark: The say-as is in 1.0. That can be cleaned up.
Irfan: Can someone review that?
Neil: The example is not correct.
Irfan: we need to fix the digit example.
Neil: I will take another look at section 3.
Irfan: Send an email with feedback.
Mark: some discussion about including audio files, not convinced that they need to be there.
Mark: best to send people to the test cases to evaluate with their own systhesizers
Mark: we want to be vendor neutral
Neil: saw a difference between section 3 an 4 for interpret-as.
Mark: rational that is not explained, in JSON model it is more of a direct mapping.
Irfan: Let Neil summarize all the info in an email.
Irfan: Single attribute approach, no feedback, unless Mark thinks we are missing something.
Mark: I don't think so.
Irfan: Pros and cons, not sufficient, need more information
Irfan: It appears clear to me what we are trying to do.
Irfan: any other ideas?
Irfan: We will stay with what we have.
Irfan: Next steps, abstract (Janina), add/update 2.2 2.3 to background (Irfan, Mark to review), Sections 3 and 4 (Neil), Roy will update status and short name, Technical consideration (no changes)
Irfan: Timeline, I will be able to finish by Friday, 4/2.
Janina: Will finish tomorrow.
Neil: today or tomorrow
Irfan: By next week we should have an updated doc
Irfan: anything else?