W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [css3-speech] Volume properties

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:40:15 +0100
Message-Id: <539A2DC9-7E11-4758-B5FD-0D35559C41F0@crissov.de>
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Just for the record.

Daniel Weck (2011-10-16):

> Hello Christoph, could you please confirm whether or not you are okay with keeping the name of the 'voice-volume' property as it is now?

I don’t feel strongly about it and since I saw the WG meanwhile agreed to keep the property name as is anyway, go ahead! Also, ‘voice-volume’ reads more natural.

> On 8 Sep 2011, at 17:45, Daniel Weck wrote:
> 
>> With regards to your suggestion to rename 'voice-volume' to 'volume-voice': I think you are making the premature assumption that a shorthand value will naturally cover the needs of both Text-To-Speech (…) and more generic multimedia control (…).

It necessarily is premature, but not random.

>> I think that the dichotomy between these two domains will remain. The 'cue' feature (…) in CSS Speech is very specific to how a screen-reader-like aural experience is structured (…), thus why this is encapsulated within the "aural box model" right now. You mention future consistency as an argument, but I actually think that consistency in the current Level 3 context is important, so I am not in favor of renaming 'voice-volume'.
>> 
>> On 19 Aug 2011, at 14:07, Christoph Päper wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe in level 4 this module should be split into two, separating aural and speech (synthesis) properties, …
>>> Therefore I think ‘volume-voice’ makes more sense than ‘voice-volume’, because then we can more consistently introduce a shorthand property ‘volume’ later.
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 11:38:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT