Re: Audio

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:55:33 +0100 (BST), Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:

> If you are just focussing on the need for background sound, it might
> be worth allowing for playlists as well as explicit sound files.
> This doesn't effect the syntax as the same url(address) syntax
> can be applied to both playlists and sound files.
>
> I would be in favor of a shorter name such as "sound" in place of
> the longer "background-sound".

My attempt was to distinguish between some sound in the background  
('backsound') and some sound present in the markup ('audio'). I might have  
missed a few properties for 'audio', and based the 'backsound' properties  
on the CSS3 Background Module.

> A further feature of potential interest is the ability to add sound
> when a field gets the focus (:focus), or when a link is clicked
> (:active). By staying with "sound" as the property name, we can use
> it on body for the page background sound, and on controls for
> dynamic effects. The CSS specificity rules could be interpreted
> as suppressing the background noise set on the body element when
> a sound property is supplied on a pseudo class, when this has
> a higher specificity.

What would speak against using 'cue' or 'backsound'? Or even

@media audio {
	p:focus { content: wind.wav; }
	a:active { content: blop.wav; }
}

Mixing/non-mixing should have a way of being defined - though balance can  
be done by balancing the sounds with the appropriate 'balance' and  
'volume' properties (maybe expressing them in percentages?).

/c

-- 
[Quote]
And she, remembering other things, to me trifles but torturing to her,  
showed me how life withers when there are things we cannot share.
~~~ Virginia Woolf