Hi all, Thanks for the thorough review! I've opened a GitHub issue <https://github.com/WebAudio/web-speech-api/issues/156> for the remaining request. Hopefully we'll settle on an option before the next Audio Working Group meeting on 5/15! I'll update the spec as soon as we do.
Thanks, Evan On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 8:10 AM Alex Russell <slightly...@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks Evan and Jeff. > > Evan: if we can get to API symmetry, I think that will help considerably. > > Evan/Jeff: this seems like good advice from the TAG. When do we think we > can get the bikeshed repain...er...develop updated names? > > Best, > > Alex > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 12:12:29 AM UTC-7 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > >> FYI, the TAG finished our review with >> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1038#issuecomment-2853142041. >> We were generally happy with the design decisions that Evan and the WG have >> made, but we were still concerned that "ondevice-only" excludes some >> choices that future UAs might reasonably want to explore. We listed 5 kinds >> of locations that a user might want to run speech recognition (or heavy >> workloads in general), and we thought the WG should look at the concrete >> websites that want to adopt this, figure out which locations they're ok >> with, and pick a name based on that. We didn't think Google Meet's >> described use case for "ondevice-only" >> <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1038#issuecomment-2837046998> >> was >> even about recognition location, but it might also indicate a feature the >> WG might want to add. >> >> Jeffrey >> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:31 AM Evan Liu <ev...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We discussed the TAG feedback at the Audio Working Group meeting >>> yesterday and I've posted our response here: >>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1038#issuecomment-2815982645 >>> >>> Please let me know if anyone has any questions/comments/concerns. >>> >>> I don't think there's any particular reason to unprefix before shipping >>>> on-device, is there? >>> >>> Also to answer your question, Rick, I don't think there's any reason to >>> unprefix before shipping on-device, so we might as well lump it together as >>> a bundle :). >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Evan >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:54 AM Brian Kardell <bkard...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just linking this up as I see there are some questions, but the opening >>>> post seems to suggest there are positive signals from WebKit... >>>> >>>> https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/443 >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, April 16, 2025 at 10:55:52 AM UTC-4 Rick Byers wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 8:14 PM Evan Liu <ev...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the detailed feedback, Jeffrey! We'll discuss this at the >>>>>> Audio Working Group meeting this week and I'll update this thread >>>>>> afterwards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Evan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 9:08 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyas...@chromium.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI, the TAG left comments at >>>>>>> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1038#issuecomment-2803693504 >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 10:22 AM Evan Liu <ev...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you thinking it might be reasonable to ship in M128 (decide by >>>>>>>>> branch on Apr 28, plan to merge any required changes before May 21)? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That sounds like a reasonable target, assuming TAG doesn't propose >>>>>>>> any significant changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, if you want to, I'm supportive of shipping the unprefixing >>>>>>>>> alone >>>>>>>>> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/6422562> >>>>>>>>> now, >>>>>>>>> since you already proved to us that the unprefixed API is not an >>>>>>>>> opportunity to make any breaking API changes. Do you prefer to >>>>>>>>> decouple >>>>>>>>> that, or just wait and get the whole bundle approved to ship together? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Either is fine with me! Would decoupling just be a matter of making >>>>>>>> the changes, or would I need to create a separate Chrome Status entry, >>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>> position statements, all of the approvals, etc.? If it's the former, we >>>>>>>> might as well make the change now. Otherwise it might just be easier to >>>>>>>> bundle everything together. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> I'm OK with just shipping the unprefixing under this same intent >>>>> without the extra paperwork, but also it's a bit simpler if we just keep >>>>> it >>>>> all lumped together as a bundle. I don't think there's any particular >>>>> reason to unprefix before shipping on-device, is there? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Evan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:51 AM Thomas Steiner <to...@google.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This all looks great to me! Are you thinking it might be >>>>>>>>>> reasonable to ship in M128 (decide by branch on Apr 28, plan to >>>>>>>>>> merge any >>>>>>>>>> required changes before May 21)? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Off by one, classic. I think you meant 1*3*8 here. I know it's >>>>>>>>> obvious now, but someone might once look back at this in ten years >>>>>>>>> from now >>>>>>>>> and wonder… >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Whoops, yes of course - thank you :-). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAOVsCZm_BqejQEb%3DmWLjV5r09BQ3iUU1K91pH_uffCNS%2BAgbNw%40mail.gmail.com.
