Perhaps true for users of the applicaitons. But, Authors would need
Resource-specification(location),
hence clearly specifying how network/local services can be used ( even
if protocols are out of scope)
, outside of browser-defaults will be of interest to many including
Openstream.
Raj
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:45:45 -0400
Jerry Carter <je...@jerrycarter.org> wrote:
On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Young, Milan wrote:
The proposal mentions that the specification of a network speech
protocol is out of scope. This makes sense given that protocols are
the domain of the IETF.
But I’d like to confirm that the use of network speech services are
in scope for this CG. Would you mind amending the proposal to make
this explicit?
I don't see why any such declaration is necessary. From the
perspective of the application author or of the application user, it
matters very little where the speech-to-text operation occurs so long
as the result is delivered promptly. There is no reason that local,
network-based, or hybrid solutions would be unable to provide
adequate performance. I believe the current language in the proposal
is appropriate.
-=- Jerry
--
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:
THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Reply to : le...@openstream.com
