W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [Bulk] Re: [Bulk] Re: 3rd call: CSS2: howto disable audio?

From: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:31:15 +0100
Message-Id: <D1B50CE2-EB7D-49F6-A263-5AC9B4F76226@btinternet.com>
Cc: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>

David,

you fail to address the query you highlight:
"Is there a good reason CSS does not cover this issue?"
is there a technical or other good reason beyond the historical  
artefact is already stated.

clearly many users might prefer to hide flash on a site by site basis  
via there browser and quite likely a user style sheet.

regards

Jonathan Chetwynd



On 30 Jul 2007, at 08:33, David Woolley wrote:


~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote:

> this seems to be counter-intuitive, and a resolution by file type  
> seems feasible or possibly even near-trivial.
> Is there a good reason CSS does not cover this issue?

You are taking a view that represents a popular misconception that  
web standard define the complete browser as a multimedia presentation  
engine, and which leads to people asking about Flash on www-html.

In its original concept, HTML provided glue to ease the navigation to  
resources in many different forms.  Commercialisation has led to  
something of a compound document concept and special sorts of links  
that result in concurrent rendering of linked resources.  However,  
the fact still remains that, if you link to (embed, access with  
object) resources rendered by third party products, you cannot expect  
those third party products to fully integrate with the W3C  
technologies in the core product.

If HTML had been designed as a multimedia presentation tool, it would be
different, but it might also not exist at all, because it would have  
been in direct competition with tools better at doing that job at the  
time it was invented.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 12:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:51 GMT