[Standards] XEP-0301 0.5 comments [Sections 1 through 5]

Edward Tie famtie at xs4all.nl
Tue Jul 24 15:34:46 UTC 2012


BUT..

I think about different languages about chinese , thais.  If you make 
wrong word. (invalid word), you need correct this word with back.


Op 24/07/2012 17:31, Gregg Vanderheiden schreef:
> I agree
>
> the word by word is often brought up -- but never implemented.  It 
> make little sense to add this here and confuse the discussion.  You 
> can't do word by word without XEP-0301 == and if doing XEP-0301 you 
> can do   NT or WbWord or SbSentence or CbClause whatever you want. 
>  But I would not get into discussing or mentioning them except to say 
> that you can allow any of them as options in a client but should be on 
> the receiving side as a preference.
>
> Talking about doing word by word but sending fragments if person is 
> slow etc is just confusing this standard.   Keep it simple I think.
>
>
> /Gregg/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
> http://Raisingthefloor.org   --- http://GPII.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 10:01 AM, Gunnar Hellström wrote:
>
>> On 2012-07-24 01:41, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Gunnar Hellström 
>>> <gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se <mailto:gunnar.hellstrom at omnitor.se>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated
>>>>         by not
>>>>         cutting at the word boundaries "He", "llo, m", "y Juliet!"
>>>>         maybe, or
>>>>         something like that. Experience and/or cynicism say that
>>>>         implementers
>>>>         are quite likely to look at the examples, ignore the text, and
>>>>         misunderstand what's going on if the examples provide
>>>>         convenient
>>>>         semantics not required by the protocol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     [Comment]
>>>>     I don't like this change.  Are you sure?
>>>>     In some earlier messages, I mentioned that word transmission is
>>>>     **greatly preferable* *to broken-word transmission.
>>>>     Also, if an implementer misunderstands, this detail is a more
>>>>     harmless misunderstanding than broken-word transmission.
>>>>
>>>>     There are other examples in the spec.
>>>>     Comments welcome from people other than Kevin and Gunnar -- I
>>>>     need more comments because I have comments that they prefer
>>>>     this Introduction, so I need to reconcile conflicting advice
>>>>     about the Introductory example.  XEP-0301 permits you to
>>>>     transmit real-time text any way you want: character-at-a-time,
>>>>     word-at-a-time, word bursts, original typing intervals,
>>>>     time-smoothed, etc.   The Introductory Example is unable to
>>>>     demonstrate all of the possible methods.  IMHO, I chose the
>>>>     'safest' introductory example.
>>>>
>>>>     Again, word transmission is greatly preferable over broken-word
>>>>     transmission.  (There's been arguments in some accessibility
>>>>     organizations in some countries, some say they prefer keypress
>>>>     intervals, some prefer word transmission instead of keypresses,
>>>>     etc.)   I am talking to a guy from a telco in UK, and he
>>>>     informed me of a political debate.
>>>>
>>>>     Can at least a few more "outsiders" comment on this change,
>>>>     please?  Thanks :-)
>>>>
>>>     I have also noticed occasional theoretical discussions about
>>>     word transmission instead of real-time text. But that just
>>>     introduces delays. Long words can take long time to type on
>>>     small devices, and many times you have benefit of seeing the
>>>     word created in real-time so that you can keep your mind in sync
>>>     with the sender.
>>>
>>>
>>> We discussed this before.  If a word takes longer than usual to 
>>> type, you just simply transmit whatever the word is so far.  It will 
>>> cause occasional broken words for those times that people take a 
>>> long time to compose a word.   But that's OK.
>>>
>>>     Even if it could be mentioned somewhere, the spec is about
>>>     real-time text, and the first example, showing the very basic
>>>     features shall also show a realistic example of transmitting
>>>     real-time text. Not word-by-word.
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. There are implementers demanding word transmission.
>>> Your edit is rejected unless there's lots of demand (i.e. 5 people 
>>> publicly agreeing with you with no further disagreements in the 
>>> mailing list)
>>>
>>>     Word-by-word also have the risk of delaying the last typed word
>>>     from being transmitted. It must have some inactivity timeout and
>>>     transmit whatever is typed if the user just stops typing at the
>>>     end of a word without any space or punctuation mark. In order to
>>>     not interfere with slow typing, a timeout should likely be in
>>>     the order of 7 seconds. That is an unfortunate extra delay in
>>>     these circumstances.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is not a problem, if you have a time limit for word composition 
>>> (i.e. 1 second transmission interval, and reset the transmission 
>>> interval everytime you hit the spacebar.  So that words come out 
>>> very quickly, with no delays more than 1 second)
>>>
>>>     Please accept the proposals for the first example being a
>>>     real-time text example.
>>>
>>>
>>> I need comments from several people.  There are people (some of 
>>> Darren Sturman's colleagues) who would disagree with you.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Mark Rejhon
>> The word-by word issue is a theoretical one that has been up for 
>> discussion in the real-time text area occasionally through the years. 
>> ( especially in UK, I do not know why. ) I am not aware of any 
>> implementation or investigation that has shown that it has any 
>> benefit over Natural Typing or time smoothing. Even if you say that 
>> there is demand for word-by word, it should not be allowed to confuse 
>> the readers in the first example of a real-time text standard.
>>
>> I propose that you follow the advice and do real-time text in the 
>> first example.
>>
>> Please note that no explanations around example one says that it is 
>> intentionally made on word boundaries. It would be more logical to 
>> mention it in the text among implementation notes in chapter 6, and 
>> let the specification start with explaining the main implementation.
>>
>> And, in fact word-by-word is mentioned in 6.1.4. It is not under a 
>> heading that would make you find it easily. You may change the 
>> heading or divide the section in two if you want it to be more visible.
>>
>> Gunnar
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20120724/4eebcef4/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list