W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1997

Inserted text (was: Re: The CSS1 and 2 diffs)

From: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:47:34 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711042347.AAA19303@mygale.inria.fr>
To: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Lars Marius Garshol writes:
 > 
 > * Chris Lilley
 > | 
 > | Thanks. Detailed comments, criticisms, change requests, etc are
 > | welcome, in this mailing list.
 > 
 > The document asked for comments on the speak-* properties, and they
 > sounded sane to me. I can see many cases in which they would be
 > useful. 
 > 
 > cue-before/-after sounds very important. I'm thinking of cases like
 > <P CLASS=warning>
 >   Don't do this at home!
 > </P>
 > 
 > or
 > 
 > <CODE CLASS=scheme>
 >   (define ! (lambda(n)
 >      ; interesting Scheme code here
 >      ))
 > </CODE>
 > 
 > However, making audio samples of things like somebody saying warning
 > or Scheme code ahead requires a bit of resources and know-how. Also,
 > the sample may be unavailable/in the wrong format/whatever. IMHO it
 > would be a good thing to allow string values as well as URLs. That way
 > one could write
 > 
 > CODE.scheme {
 >     speak-punctuation: code; speech-rate: slow; 
 >     cue-before: "Scheme example"; pause-before: 100ms; pause-after: 100ms
 > }
 > 
 > Similarly, the ability to insert text and/or attribute values would be
 > a good thing. Some XML applications are probably going to require the
 > insertion of text at certain points and they will be that much harder
 > to display with CSS if CSS cannot insert text. I assume we'll have to
 > wait for XSL/DSSSL specifications and implementations.

Yes, we are working hard on that (see sections 15.7 & 15.8:-) ). There
are strong reasons for this feature for accessibility, not just in XML
but also in HTML. And although it hasn't made it into this draft, I
full expect it to be in the next one.

Suggestions are welcome, of course. Your first idea was the same as
ours, so let's see if your second one is the same as well...

 > 
 > | Tell us about what parts you like, too.
 > 
 > I liked that the specification was much more thorough and exact. The
 > CSS1 spec left room for interpretation, which probably wasn't a good
 > thing, so I for one am glad there is less room now.

I agree. Of course the text is also 4 times longer now...

 > 
 > Other than that I can only say that I wish this entire effort the best
 > of luck. May we see better implementations of CSS2 than we've seen of
 > CSS1...

Working hard on that, too. And again, any help is welcome. 


Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos/                              W3C/INRIA
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 93 65 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 1997 18:48:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:51 GMT