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

Re: Comments from PFWG on CSS3 Speech Module

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:35:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4E98E36B.2040708@inkedblade.net>
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
CC: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, www-style@w3.org, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, List WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>, List WAI PF <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
On 10/14/2011 02:22 AM, Daniel Weck wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2011, at 20:25, Janina Sajka wrote:
>> 7.)	voice-duration:<time>;
>>
>> This is another property that seems to provide very little value. For example, what would be the expected behavior given the following CSS:
>>
>> p { voice-duration: 1s; }
>>
>> Given the following markup.
>>
>> <p>Short paragraph.</p>
>>
>> <p>Longer paragraph. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer elementum interdum ullamcorper. Nunc et ante dui. Sed odio erat, dictum vitae adipiscing nec, aliquam sed nibh. Fusce pharetra ante dolor.</p>
>>
>> The first paragraph would be understandable, but should the second paragraph really be pronounced over a duration of 1 second? Probably not. Implementation of this would be tricky, too. Have any other vendors have expressed an interest in its implementation?
>>
>> voice-duration is marked as at-risk, and we support dropping it from the final specification.
>
> I agree that there are potential implementation and usability issues, thus why the 'voice-duration' property is marked "at-risk". I believe this was introduced into CSS3 Speech in order to match the SSML feature-set more closely, however personally I am not aware of any real-world usage.
> For tracking purposes, I am marking this comment as "closed / invalid": there does not seem to be an issue with the property specification per-say (which is aligned with the SSML recommendation).

Hm, I'd say, if there isn't a use case, and it seems likely to have
implementation and/or usability issues, and nobody has expressed a
desire to have it, then it seems fair to drop it until someone
requests it. We can copy the spec prose from the LC into a later
spec if it turns out it's needed. What do you think?

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 01:36:23 GMT

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