[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [SpeechIO-48] string substitution (was: Re: [SpeechIO-12] speechdv0.39)
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Kyle Burton wrote:
> '/' isn't used as punctuation, right? the only things that are are
> [.,;:?] right? Is that what we can break on?
> something like an inversion set, for example:
> ([^.,;:? \t]+)
> Would this be closer to what we want? Hmm...this includes binary data,
> so it's probably not what we want exactly...
I think it'd be best to do...
/me pulls out the camel book & mans ascii...
I dunno if I need to escape anything other than the \. But basically, I
think that's the set that we should consider parts of words. Am very open
to other ideas. (\w includes a-zA-Z0-9)
> If speechd is just a condiut, then we don't have to concern ourselves about
> tainting problems -- as soon as we start filtering the data, then we have
> to worry about tainting issues. Multibyte would allow foriegn character
> sets to pass through speechd -- if someone has written (or does in the future)
> a festival like server that speaks french, then we'd already support it
> if we pass multibyte characters -- which perl handles just fine by itself
> \w is a multibyte character, not just an ascii character...
I think you found an issue, in how we're looking at our goals. I think
I'm thinking more than a conduit -- a standardized method of doing speech
synthesis that just happens to be really convienient.
> but if we move this stuff to catspeech, then speechd doen't have to worry
> about it (or use the cpu do deal with it). catspeech would, and that's
> not run by root, so it'd be freindlier to the system as a whole.
Mathiew aggress with you about moving the string substitution out of
speechd. I have difficulty with the idea of each individual client
re-implimenting string substitution -- so I wouldn't just want to move the
code over to catspeech. But a perl module... I think I could deal with
> > I'm very happy to have you back :)
> thanks, I just hope my contributions are worthwhile and don't detract from
> where you're trying to take things.
We may not be going in exactly the same direction, but I think it's really
close, and I think the results are very positive.
Hell, if we thought the same things, and knew the same stuff, having
multiple of us wouldn't be nearly as useful :)
PGP fingerprint = 03 5B 9B A0 16 33 91 2F A5 77 BC EE 43 71 98 D4
firstname.lastname@example.org / http://www.op.net/~darxus
Far Beyond Reason