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

Re: Comments from PFWG on CSS3 Speech Module

From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:03:49 +0100
Cc: www-style@w3.org, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, List WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>, List WAI PF <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <22C4C7B4-D84A-4BBE-BFBF-BC91E6301DC9@gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>

On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:25, Janina Sajka wrote:
> 8.)	voice-stress:
> 
> Seems to provide limited utility, hijacking, and implementation difficulty. 
> voice-stress is marked as at-risk, and we support dropping it from the final specification. 

Point taken.

> If retained, Consider the more descriptive name: | voice-emphasis, rather than
> voice-stress. | Stress sounds only angry. | Emphasis has less emotion to it.

The SSML specification states that "emphasis" is also referred to as "prominence" or "stress".

Historically - all the way back to the non-normative CSS2.1 Aural Stylesheets appendix - the term "stress" has been used for the CSS property itself. The term "emphasis" was (and still is) used to describe the effect from variations of loudness, rate, and/or other factors.

On a personal / subjective level, I am fine with this (theoretical) default user-agent style declaration:

em
{
voice-stress: strong;
font-style: italic;
}

Please let us know if you would still like the 'voice-stress' property to be renamed.
Many thanks!
Regards, Dan
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 09:04:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT