W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [css3-reader] compared to aural

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 07:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Message-Id: <200402270744.i1R7iNh03495@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> What would the difference be to having a 'reader' media type, to the 
> currently existing 'aural' media type? Surly screen readers should be 

Because aural has been deprecated in CSS2.1, although in a 
non-standard way.  Normally deprecated material should indicate
the construct that makes it unnecessary.  CSS2.1 does indicate
the possibilty of a speech media type doing that, but can't actually
quote it as the replacement because it is still under development.
That puts the whole area into limbo rather than indicating a
transition.

CSS2.1 also tries to describe it's description of aural as non-normative,
but at the same time saying that any use of aural will have a meaning
it then describes.

Finally it fails to say that it is deprecated (rather than being
deferred) in the summary of changes.

Based on last call version of CSS2.1.
Received on Friday, 27 February 2004 02:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT