Thanks for the email! nalexander should weigh in on the particular build approach, but you're absolutely right that we need tight control over the inclusion of large libraries and assets.
Those three flags seem like a good starting point to me. What's the behavior of the API when there are no engines available? How much of an impact on compiled size and omni.ja does the existence of the API itself have? Ta, -R On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:35 AM, Kelly Davis <[email protected]> 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 Fennec 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) > > The question is: Is this a good plan for Fennec? Should there be more/less > fine grade control for installation there? > > [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/speech-api/raw-file/tip/webspeechapi.html > [2] http://cmusphinx.sourceforge.net/ > > _______________________________________________ > mobile-firefox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev > >
_______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
