John: > However, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be implemented. This is > an area in which I think there is a disproportionate amount of "non- > discussion", since many people who would use or be interested in MRCP > simply don't participate in the Asterisk project because it doesn't > meet their needs out of the gate. Therefore, we see few people asking > for it, in a self-fulfilling loop. > > Is MRCP something that is significantly lacking in Asterisk? Is it a > difficult protocol to implement? Is there anyone here on -dev with > the experience to do it? > I don't know whether it's "significantly lacking" nor how difficult it is to implement, but it's certainly nice to have. It would increase the appeal of Asterisk to those used to working with MRCP-compatible resources in other platforms.
That said, it can be argued that it's best to keep Asterisk simple and free of extra features. If its core purpose does not consist of interfacing with ASR and TTS engines, then some would argue that it's best to keep such features to a separate platform. Regards, -- Erik Caneris Tel: 647-723-6365 Fax: 647-723-5365 Toll-free: 1-866-827-0021 www.caneris.com _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
