W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

RE: BGSOUND, no need for it

From: Richard Gardner <rgardner@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:18:16 -0700
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-11-MSG-960825201816Z-6796@mail2.microsoft.com>
To: "'Carl Morris'" <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
Cc: "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>

While I agree in part with the essence of what you're saying about
BGSOUND, I think such things as sounds that play on hyperlink etc. would
be better controlled through a pseudo-class in the author/user style
sheets e.g.

A:hyperlink { bgsound:... }

Then, if the user style sheet won, rather than the author style sheet (
a big bug bear in my opinion ... ) the user could supply a set of
preferred audio  files for a more consistant browsing experience.

While the EMBED tag idea has a more generic implementation for supplying
background audio, among other things, it fails to address the
requirement for the user to have finer control over their browsing
experience.



>----------
>From: 	Carl Morris[SMTP:msftrncs@htcnet.com]
>Sent: 	Saturday, August 24, 1996 2:46 PM
>To: 	Paul Prescod
>Cc: 	WWW Style List
>Subject: 	Re: BGSOUND, no need for it
>
>| From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
>| To: Jason O'Brien <jaobrien@fttnet.com>; www-style@w3.org;
>www-html@w3.org
>| Subject: RE: BGSOUND, no need for it
>| Date: Saturday, August 24, 1996 5:24 AM
>| 
>
>If we are going to blow things out of the water, lets do it fairly uh?
>
>| >Why NOT have a BGSOUND tag?   
>| 
>| BGSOUND, like BGCOLOR, should be a style-sheet thing. I cannot
>imagine a
>| circumstance where a sound that starts playing when a page is
>downloaded
>| could be considered anything other than fluff. If a sound is
>important to
>| the meaning of a web page, it should be embedded or linked to so that
>the
>| user is in control of when it plays. If the meaning of the sound
>isn't
>| important enough for you to allow the user that control, then it is
>just
>| presentation and should be in the style sheet.
>
>And since when should HTML be only content... theres no way... already,
>just embeding CSS1 into HTML files causes HTML to hold style... a CSS1
>document is not content!
>
>| > Microsoft has shown how easily it can be   
>| >added to rendering and how efficiently it can be used -- I think a  
>
>| >rendering tag for background sound or music when a page opens is a
>very   
>| >good and useful feature to add without even having to mess with java
>--   
>| >when you say that BGSOUND shouldn't even be a part of HTML, then
>what   
>| >about EMBED or IMG -- why have images inserted with HTML, according
>to   
>| >your argument?   
>| 
>| Embedded images or objects COULD be crucial information in a Web
>page.
>| Although web developers should work their butt off to be
>cross-platform,
>| some content requires multimedia features. An art gallery without
>pictures
>| is not very meaningful. That is why <EMBED SRC="mysound.wav"> is also
>very
>| important. The ALT content of the EMBED and IMG tags allow users to
>know
>| what they are missing so that they can decide whether to download it
>or not.
>| BGSOUND is a completely different thing, because it is presentation,
>not
>| content.
>
>
>Images COULD be crucial information (ie CONTENT) BUT usually isn't! 
>BGSOUND is not different from EMBED...  EMBED was a bad bad bad idea on
>netscape's part...  Its too broad with no backwards compatibility... as
>such it can not even be considered better.
>
>In the real world anyway, once OBJECT passes, everything will be
>embeded with OBJECT... these discussions will die off... and HTML will
>continue to go were WE the end users WANT it to go... There is no
>standards body anywhere that can stop (mark my words!) HTML from
>becoming what ever it will...  The world right now would rather have
>style, then thats what it will be.  (Describing content in and of
>itself produces its style anyway, so why can't HTML be considered
>style?  Face to face, HTML is just one very flexible form of style
>description...)
>
>| So you don't mind that they will lose the sound without getting any
>ALT
>| text? Clearly, then, you either intend to use the BGSOUND element for
>| presentation, not for serious content, or you intend for your pages
>to
>| degrade poorly on non-multimedia computers. Either one goes against
>the
>| goals of HTML.
>
>Like I said above, like EMBED would allow this?  Come on!
>
>| "Tags" are always supposed to define structure. BGSOUND is a
>presentational
>| attribute. It might make sense to make it an attribute of BODY, or a
>CSS
>| property of BODY. As a CSS property, it could be used more generally,
>for
>| instance as a way of "attaching" sound to hypertext links, or even to
>page
>| actions: I could imagine properties like:
>
>and since when doesn't structure describe style!  People ought to wake
>up, look the world square in the face and relise they can't because IT
>IS ROUND!  Style and content go hand in hand, without one the other
>doesn't exist, not in the consumer world anyway.
>
>| Finally, the style-sheet mechanism allows background sounds to be
>added to
>| any SGML DTD, not just HTML. All in all, style sheets are the best
>place to
>| put background sounds.
>
>Just as a note, there is no backwards compatibility mechanisms in style
>sheets yet.  Nothing in CSS1 comes close to what the OBJECT tag will...
> Does DSSS?  If not, maybe that is where people should be looking... 
>It was mentioned not that long ago that OBJECT's flexibility just
>doesn't exist in CSS1 or tags like BODY BACKGROUND and BGSOUND... 
>before any more elements such as the ones above are proposed that issue
>should be covered.
>
>I also challenge anyone to prove that any tag is style only or isn't at
>all style...  The arguements on content and style need to thought out
>much more carefully...  at least as it refers to HTML...
>
>
Received on Sunday, 25 August 1996 16:18:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:45 GMT