On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 9:40:47 AM UTC+2, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:24 PM, <kdavis> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 8:00:44 AM UTC+2, Xidorn Quan wrote: > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:36 PM, <kdavis> wrote: > > > > > > > We would like some feedback on build flags for the Web Speech API > > > > installation. > > > > > > > > More specifically, we are planning to land an initial version of the > > Web > > > > Speech API[1] into Geko. However, due to a number of factors, model > > size > > > > being one of them, we plan to introduce various build flags which > > > > install/do not install parts of the Web Speech API for various build > > > > targets. > > > > > > > > Our current plan for B2G is as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Introduce a flag to control installation of the Web Speech API > > > > 2. Introduce a flag to control installation of Pocketsphinx[2], the > > > > STT/TTS engine. > > > > 3. Introduce a script to allow installation of models, allowing > > developers > > > > to test the Web Speech API (They can test once they've made a build > > with > > > > the previous two flags on) > > > > > > > > Our question is related to desktop and Fennec. Our current plan is to: > > > > > > > > 1. Introduce a flag to control installation of the Web Speech API + > > > > Pocketsphinx + English model[3] > > > > > > > > The question is: Is this a good plan for desktop and Fennec? Should > > there > > > > be more/less fine grade control for installation there? > > > > > > > > > > I think for desktop and fennec, some of the systems already provide APIs > > > for TTS and STT. At least, Android has both of them [1][2], Mac also does > > > [3]. Windows should have, but I'm not sure what form do they provide. > > > > > > I think for those systems, it's probably better to use their API, so that > > > we provide the same experience as their native apps, and allow us not to > > > include the engine ourselves. > > > > I think the Web Speech API[1] serves a difference audience. > > > > It is a JavaScript API that web applications can access. In addition the > > web Speech API will be the same across various OS's, allowing web > > applications to do STT/TTS in a OS independent manner from web applications. > > > > So, the introduction of the Web Speech API does not stop people from > > writing native code, which they can always do. It does, however, greatly > > ease and standardize cross platform STT/TTS. > > > > I meant, we do not need to include the speech engines in Firefox. We just > need adaptors to use those system APIs, instead of Pocketsphinx, to provide > the speech service for web applications. That way, we can provide the > feature as powerful as what the systems have already provided. e.g. OS X > currently supports TTS for tens of languages, and STT for around ten > languages. > > - Xidorn
I don't think your approach is excluded. In fact it is encouraged. The Web Speech API can support more than one backend at a time and in future we will add other backends, likely including the native backends you mentioned. However, as a first step we want to use only Pocketsphinx. (This simplifies the initial task of implementation as we can concentrate on a single backend.) Later we will add other STT/TTS backends which will likely include the various native backends you mentioned. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
