At 8:03 PM 11/10/93 -0600, Danny Iacovou wrote:
I think what is being asked is "Do we have enough expertise to decide if
Content-language:
is all that is needed? or do we have to do something like
Content-language:
Content-language-dialect:
But we don't need to make that decision. We can define Content-Language:
now, and let Content-language-dialect: or
Content-language-speech-impediment: or whatever worry about itself later.
Let Content-Language: be a rough guide to the language involved, and then
worry about finer distinctions as they become necessary or useful. We can
do that either by defining more headers (as Danny suggests), or by allowing
parameters:
Content-language: en; dialect=us; accent=bronx; hostility=high
or whatever. We don't have to do it all the first time around, so long as
we leave room to build on whatever we do.
After all, I don't think there's a pressing need to be able to tell speech
synthesizers what accent to use; garden-variety text-to-speech systems are
lucky if they sound HUMAN.
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Inc.
Sometimes it's easier to let your cockatoo eat your shoes
than to hear him scream.