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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:16:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4E9CC55D.9060901@inkedblade.net>
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
CC: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, List WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>, List WAI PF <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "paul.bagshaw@orange.com> <paul.bagshaw@orange.com" <paul.bagshaw@orange.com>, www-voice@w3.org
On 10/15/2011 02:23 AM, Daniel Weck wrote:
>
> On 15 Oct 2011, at 02:35, fantasai wrote:
>> 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?
>
> (CC Voice-Browser group)
>
> I assumed that the "at-risk" status was the most appropriate device to ensure that unwanted features do not end-up cluttering the final specification. The 'voice-duration' property has been in the CSS Speech drafts for a very long time [1], and it corresponds to a "non-disputed" feature in SSML. I wonder if removing it at this stage of the design process is judicious. Wouldn't running the course "as normal" be equally effective? (i.e. CR references implementations, or lack thereof)

The at-risk status defers the decision of whether it stays in the standard
to whether it will be implemented correctly or not. If we think a feature
is not good to have, then we shouldn't include it even at-risk. Leaving
it in the spec isn't entirely cost-free: it complicates the spec, and it
encourages implementers to try implementing it. If we don't think it's useful,
that's a waste of resources.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 00:17:29 GMT

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