W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2000

Wrapping up the ACSS Module Ideas

From: Sean Palmer <wapdesign@wapdesign.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:26:06 +0100
Message-ID: <002301c03889$3f2c0b60$e6dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: <howcome@opera.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ianh@netscape.com>, "fantasai" <fantasai@escape.com>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@knowscape.com>, "Tim Bagot" <tsb-w3-style-0001@earth.li>
Sirs:
This is a short note to summarize my standpoint on my ideas for the ACSS
module of CSS3.

[1] I realize that HTML provides "some" implementation for the concerns
expressd by myself:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-HTML-TECHS-20000920/#group-bypass
However, it is actually that reference which prompted me to come up with
these ideas. I did so becuase I don't believe the HTML solutions are
architecturally sound enough.
For example, having the first link as a "bypass" link is a good idea in
voice browsers, but utterly pointless in screen browsers.
CSS provides us with a chance to use @media rules which clear up some of the
confusion. See [5] for more details.

[2] I realize that a little of my conversation may be spurious, but that is
mainly due to the fact that I am developing these ideas "on the go" as it
were.

[3] If you'll refer to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Oct/0149.html, you'll see
I have come up with a very rough sketch of the proposed ideas in a formal
fashion. This message should now be regarded as *out-of-date*. A proper
re-write of this may be something like:-
CSS Properties for sub-module: Styles For Optional Data
(For @media aural)
Name:
    'play'
CSS Values:
    [ normal | optional | none ]+
Initial value:
    'normal'

(For @media all)
Name:
    'skip'
CSS Values:
    [ [ provide-bypass, [ allow-bypass | disregard-bypass ]+ ] | none]+
Initial value:
    'none'

Basically the same/similar, but with the 'alt' property dropped, which was
just a bad idea. See my last message, in reply to Fantasai for more updates
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Oct/0191.html).

[4] The ACSS module is as much a WAI thing as it is Voice Browser or CSS. I
wonder if any members of the WAI group have any comments on these ideas?
What will happen to the ACSS module - if it is dropped, surely the style
contained in CSS2 will need to go elsewhere?

[5] The final matter is the overall view. Providing this as style rather
than HTML or some other such "hack" may seem a good idea, but should it
really be style? Consider:-
1) I strongly believe that this is "styling" the document, in as much as you
are attaching a style to a piece of data: i.e. styling it as
optional/skippable. The source data should be unchanged, but its style
rendered differently.
2) A style is separate from the document which uses it. If a skipping
implementation is contained in a style sheet, such as I am asking for here,
it means that it can be applied to hundreds of pages using just one CSS
sheet. It will also mean that it will be more widely used by the general
public (due to the fact it will take less effort to use it). This has been
mentioned by persons other than myself.
3) A style only affects how the content is rendered in the specific UA.
Using this method, the skippable content still exists, it is just stlyed as
"optional".

I hope this clears up some of the disparity that I have, in part, caused!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 18:26:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:06 GMT