Any conclusions from the WG meeting? On Wednesday, May 14, 2025 at 8:11:49 PM UTC+2 ev...@google.com wrote:
> 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/5d929e56-860f-46f8-9472-a46f0a84df53n%40chromium.org.
