RE: HTML forms

2000-07-23 Thread James P. Salsman

 Anyone know whether Opera has microphone upload yet?
 
 More to the point, does anyone care?

Well, sure, Opera probably cares whether they have a feature that 
Tim Berners-Lee claims is an integral part of the HTML standard, 
but hasn't yet been implemented by any of their competitors:

  http://www.bovik.org/devup/tbl-devup.txt

Over 150 people have told me, using a web-based endorsement form, 
that they want the elegant symmetry that general device input and 
upload would provide.  Traditionally, helper applications for 
browsers have handled output presentation.  The same facilities can
be used for input from any number of sources and uploaded using 
standard form submission.  This will enable interoperability that 
closed cartels can not, with much greater customer approval.

Anyone whose life would be enriched by ease in implementing and 
performing media upload, be it audio, video, images, text editor 
files, or even raw serial input should care, even if they do not at 
present.  One of the strongest supporters is a Professor of 
Linguistics at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, who probably 
means a lot of potential sales, given the number of cadets that he 
is responsible for teaching spoken languages to.

Those who wish to register their support are encouraged to vote:

  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showvotes.cgi?voteon=46135

on this Mozilla feature request:

  http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46135

Cheers,
James




RE: HTML forms

2000-07-14 Thread Parkinson, Jonathan

Thanks for the confirmation there Lloyd :)

J.
---

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, James P. Salsman wrote:

 Anyone know whether Opera has microphone upload yet?

More to the point, does anyone care?

L.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]PGPhttp://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/




ACCEPT and DEVICE (was Re: HTML forms)

2000-04-01 Thread James P. Salsman

Stephanos,

Thanks for your message:

... You need detailed definitions, changes to DTDs, and more.
 If you have these details, it would be nice to point us all to a
 proposal so we know how "DEVICE" and "MAXTIME" would work.

Sorry about not pointing to this document:

  http://www.bovik.org/device-upload.html

in every message.  It started out as an Internet Draft in late 1997.

 WHAT CONCERNS [from Norman Solomon's article in FAIR's _Extra!_],
 and HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THIS DISCUSSION?

The same concerns I had after participating in the W3C's extended 
forms working group for most of last year -- that they care far 
more about e-commerce that they should (to the point of wanting to 
completely overhaul perfectly serviceable HTML forms as the are) 
and at the same time are seriously neglecting educational needs.

... We've HAD this technical discussion here AGES ago. Create a form,
 give it an accept type of audio/whatever and let the user agent 
 bother about how to get it. If that's too primitive for your needs,
 go and create a separate protocol

Not only does the chair of the HTML Working Group and everyone 
else in the W3C who has spoken out on the topic, including 
Tim Berners-Lee, agree with these sentiments, SO DO I!!!  In 
a perfect world, all of the browser authors would implement
device upload using the ACCEPT attribute within INPUT TYPE=FILE.

However, in the world we live in, NONE of them have done that.  
The only reason why that I've been able to find, after years 
of communication with them and studying their code, when it has 
been available, is that many major releases of the big-two 
browsers have interpreted the ACCEPT attribute as a filename 
pattern.  The underlying reason is that at for a long while, 
the official HTML 3.2 specification suggested ACCEPT was 
supposed to be a filename pattern, so that was the correct 
behavior as interpreted by the browser developers, and it has 
probably become part of some legacy application somewhere.

So people have a choice, between idealism, where everybody 
faithfully implements the specs exactly as they are handed 
down (even if they don't remain consistent between revisions 
of the same version number), and pragmatism, where the 
introduction of an extra attribute (such as DEVICE) would 
allow the browser authors to rest easy that they aren't 
breaking anyone's legacy implementations of a ACCEPT, while 
at the same time providing a way to specify a default device 
selection.  Setting aside the fact that the HTML Working 
Group claims it would be bad user interface design to allow 
for the selection of a default (a position I find untenable),
which is the practical choice?

Which is better for spoken language instruction?

Which makes it more likely that mass-market portable wireless 
boxes will implement high-quality asynchronous voice messaging
even under very-low-bandwidth conditions?

Cheers,
James

P.S. sorry about the echoed message sans my reply




Re: support for device upload (was Re: HTML forms)

2000-04-01 Thread Keith Moore

James,

bottom line is, this is a W3C matter.  you need to convince *them*.

Keith




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-31 Thread James P. Salsman

Valdis,

Thank you for your reply:

 When was the last time you bought a microphone/audio card for
 a system that didn't include at least basic software to do 
 [recording to files]?

Not too many months.  Try any Linux on any of IBM's PCs with one 
of their soundcard/modem combinations; you'll see.  Sure, someone 
has a driver somewhere, but even top-of-the-line consumer Linuxes 
can't (or won't) auto-detect it, for IBM's most popular consumer 
models.  But simply providing such applications is not the
primary difficulty.

How many clicks and keystrokes does the recorder app on your 
desktop take to save a file?  How many to select that file in 
an INPUT TYPE=FILE widget?  Doesn't that tell you why, with a 
growing market in speech recognition-based language learning 
software, nobody seems to be using web file upload for 
microphone data upload?

 Well, the MIME spec came "out of the box" with audio MIME types.

None of which were suitable for spoken language instruction 
until RFC 2586.  The majority of them are still proprietary, 
and even the almost-state-of-the-art-and-wildly-popular MP3 
format is owned by a (litigiously overwhelmed) German firm.

 in late 1996 some language instructors on one of the distance 
 education lists (DEOS?) or newsgroups were claiming that 
 voice-email presents more trouble than it is worth, at least 
 for some students.
 
 There are those who find VCR's challenging.  It isn't NTSC's or PAL's
 fault...

We are talking about serving a population of students.  And a 
standards organization claiming to be dedicated to platform-
independence and interoperability, while simultaneously claiming 
that non-normative aspects of the proprietary OBJECT and EMBED 
elements absolve it from  complicity -- complicity not only 
in the promulgation of noninteroperable specifications that 
reinforce wintel dominance, but that expose ordinary browser 
users to the profoundly serious security risks of raw binary 
executable code.  For that latter reason alone I believe there 
is justifiable cause for the IETF to suspend the W3C's HTML 
type registration.

Plus, there are issues pertaining to the granularity of each 
recording.  With a web-based asynchronous audio conferencing 
system using microphone upload, the task of grading a plethora 
of spoken phrases turned in from students could be made to be 
much easier than trying to take care of the same number of 
email attachments.

Cheers,
James




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-30 Thread James P. Salsman

Harald,

Thanks for your message:

 There is no procedure to "suspend control of aspects" of a specification,

The proposal would involve ammending the registration of the 
text/html media type, incorporating the W3C standards extended
with two attributes of the INPUT element, DEVICE and MAXTIME.

... the IETF is of the opinion that HTML is not under our control anyway.

I understand that.  There might be substantial benefits from 
reconsidering those opinions.  Within the IETF, public debate 
is assured on almost all controversial matters.  The W3C, 
however, constrains meaningful debate to those willing and able 
to pay US$50,000 per year.  I agree that there was a point in 
the early development of web standards when that constraint was 
beneficial.  Now, however, with Netscape owned by a company 
shipping MSIE, and the stagnation or regression of the core HTML 
standards, along with the concerns raised in Norman Solomon's 
article, I believe the time has come to return certain aspects 
of the control of HTML to the IETF.  Even if that view is not 
shared by the IETF, I the only way I would not be certain that 
a debate on the topic would be healthy for the Internet communty
would be if the W3C were to take an affirmative stand on issues 
involving microphone upload for language instruction and 
asyncronous audio conferencing.

Cheers,
James




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-30 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:03:07 PST, "James P. Salsman" said:
 is assured on almost all controversial matters.  The W3C, 
 however, constrains meaningful debate to those willing and able 
 to pay US$50,000 per year.  I agree that there was a point in 
 the early development of web standards when that constraint was 
 beneficial.  Now, however, with Netscape owned by a company

Why was it beneficial then?

 shipping MSIE, and the stagnation or regression of the core HTML 
 standards, along with the concerns raised in Norman Solomon's 
 article, I believe the time has come to return certain aspects

And why is it non-beneficial now, given the apparent complexity of
getting a product shipped (look at the current state of Mozilla)?
Let's face it - anybody who intends to ship a working browser will
need to have enough programmers that the $50K is the least of the problems.

Yes, this cuts Mozilla out unless somebody pays for their membership. On
the other hand, are there any other *real* contenders for whom $50K would
be a hardship?

 of the control of HTML to the IETF.  Even if that view is not 
 shared by the IETF, I the only way I would not be certain that 
 a debate on the topic would be healthy for the Internet communty
 would be if the W3C were to take an affirmative stand on issues 
 involving microphone upload for language instruction and 
 asyncronous audio conferencing.

Umm.. Microphone upload is the *least* of the many challenges facing
HTML at the current time.

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-30 Thread James P. Salsman

Valdis,

Thank you for your reply to my message:

...  The W3C... constrains meaningful debate to those willing and able
 to pay US$50,000 per year.  I agree that there was a point in
 the early development of web standards when that constraint was
 beneficial
 
 Why was it beneficial then?

There was a lot of concern that a consensus would be too dificult 
to achieve unless there were some entry barriers.  The other 
reasons involved mutual nondisclosure and similar features of 
quickly-emerging technology companies.  None of those reasons 
should have ever been assumed to be perminant.  Another benefit 
was that the membership fees established a great infrastructure 
of facilities and staff for the W3C

 And why is it non-beneficial now...?

Well, I've already given a couple reasons beyond those of 
Normon Solomon's, but consider this:  The W3C has over 400 members!
  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
That's over US$20 million in annual membership fees.

Typical W3C members don't even seem to realize they are part of the
consortium.  For example, TIAA-CREF and Recording for the Blind and 
Dyslexic are both members.  But after days on the phone and over 
email, nobody I've reached within those organizations has any idea 
who their W3C Advisory Committee representative is.

Recording for the Blind asks me for money every few months, and I've 
given to them in the past, but knowing that they spend $50K a year 
without any idea who their AC rep. is makes it a lot less likely for 
me to want to donate anything else to them.  It would be different 
if their AC rep. stood up for their interests, but nobody at 
Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic with whom I've spoken had even 
the faintest idea what microphone upload was or how it could benefit 
them.  Same with TIAA-CREF, supposedly representing the interests
of tens of thousands of language teachers.

 On the other hand, are there any other *real* contenders for whom
 $50K would be a hardship?

Absolutly.  The foremost are probably the developers of Emacs'
w3-mode, but I'm sure I could name a dozen tiny browser-developing 
projects of one kind or another, if you're interested.  How about 
the developers of LWP.pm and CGI.pm -- do you expect them to plop 
down 50 grand anytime soon?

Cheers,
James




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-30 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:06:44 PST, "James P. Salsman" said:
 audio conferencing.  If you wanted to provide for students 
 on several different platforms, you would have to provide 
 a microphone capture application for each of them.  Then,

Sounds like a straw man to me.

When was the last time you bought a microphone/audio card for
a system that didn't include at least basic software to do this
sort of thing?

And I'm the one who always complains that vendors don't ship
support for AIX (Macromedia Flash, RealAudio, and StarOffice being
at the top of my wish list this week).

 Only a few mail user agents provide that capability.  Back

Well, the MIME spec came "out of the box" with audio MIME types.
Put the blame squarely on the MUA developers, the protocol supported
it - in fact, I believe one of the early MIME 'stress test' messages
included an audio clip, while RFC1341 was still at I-D status.

 in late 1996 some language instructors on one of the distance 
 education lists (DEOS?) or newsgroups were claiming that 
 voice-email presents more trouble than it is worth, at least 
 for some students.

There are those who find VCR's challenging.  It isn't NTSC's or PAL's
fault...

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:37:59 PST, "James P. Salsman" said:
 There was a lot of concern that a consensus would be too dificult 
 to achieve unless there were some entry barriers.  The other 
 reasons involved mutual nondisclosure and similar features of 
 quickly-emerging technology companies.  None of those reasons

And you're claiming that with MORE voices, consensus would be easier
to achieve now?

Also, I've heard from several people "I have browser XYZ written by 3
or 4 people, it's tiny, fast, and implements most stuff".  Which,
actually, was my point - it's pretty easy to write a browser that will
implement MOST stuff.  However, by the time you do full HTML 4,
Javascript, SSL, CSS, Java, and whatever else, you're looking at a
pretty big pile of code, unless you're just in the "Let's see how far
into the wilderness we can push feature XYZ at the cost of other
support" game.  Sure, 2-3 programmers can get a basic minimal browser
done - but 2-3 programmers are probably not going to implement
*enough* of the esoteric stuff that they will start needing to worry
about what partially-specified feature XYZ really means, unless feature
XYZ is already widely acknowledged to be defined in a brain-dead manner...

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-29 Thread Murray Altheim

"James P. Salsman" wrote:
 
 Some educational software advocates and I are considering
 asking the IETF to suspend control of certain aspects of
 HTML forms from the W3C until microphone upload issues are
 addressed.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Gad. Get a life. Really.

I'm gone a month from www-html and the first message I get upon 
resubscribing is this one. Looks like it's time to unsubscribe again. 

Bye.

Murray

...
Murray Altheimmailto:altheim#x40;eng.sun.com
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

   But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
   how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye
   desire again to be in bondage?  -- Galatians 4:9




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-29 Thread James Salsman

Murray,

Thank you for the substance of your debate:

... Get a life

A life is best given with education (Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, Article 27.)  If microphone upload were prevalent, 
would asynchronous audio conferencing make spoken language 
instruction easier enough to help at least one other person?

 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
 how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye
 desire again to be in bondage?  -- Galatians 4:9

With the disclaimer that I am a strictly nonevangelical friend, 
here is a response in kind:

  And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the 
  kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might 
  not see, and hearing they might not understand.  -- Luke 8:10

The whole point of microphone upload is to help teach languages 
where simple audio output is insufficient.  Evaluation of audio 
input is necessary for effective speech training and accent reduction.

Cheers,
James




Re: HTML forms

2000-03-29 Thread Harald Alvestrand

At 16:52 29.03.00 -0800, James P. Salsman wrote:
Some educational software advocates and I are considering
asking the IETF to suspend control of certain aspects of
HTML forms from the W3C until microphone upload issues are
addressed.
No matter what may be thought of the merits of the case, such a
request would be ignored by the IETF.

There is no procedure to "suspend control of aspects" of a specification,
and the IETF is of the opinion that HTML is not under our control anyway.

Sorry 'bout that.

   Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]