It would definitely be better to make this change before the feature ships, but it's up to y'all Blink owners if you think this should be a blocker for this intent. The Audio Working Group is meeting tomorrow morning so hopefully we'll be able to reach a consensus then!
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 8:04 AM Yoav Weiss (@Shopify) < yoavwe...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 7, 2025 at 8:50:12 PM UTC+2 ev...@google.com wrote: > > 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. > > > Is this issue a blocker for this intent, or is it an option that can be > added in a backwards compatible way later on? > > > > 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/CAOVsCZ%3DnCOZcWvg9Xr_smRAEsD3WBGHuh_%3DH0NRUqWChpCUsCA%40mail.gmail.com.
