- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:43:56 +0200
- To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>, jon.rimmer@gmail.com
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, jens@meiert.com
> I have always interpreted the 'neutral' value as "if possible, pick a > voice that doesn't sound male or female in an obvious manner. Note that > this may select a more robotic voice, or for example a human-sounding > stylised voice". That is what I was thinking of. > there is no point speccing 'neutral' to mean 'a human-sounding voice of > indeterminate gender' if that it is not what how they interpret it. It > seems like we are paving the cowpaths somewhat here, and need to respect > how the existing implementations behave, even if it isn't necessarily > what we would prefer given a free-hand. Of course existing implementations have to be considered. So Daniel's interpretation sounds fine to me. When speccing this I would just mention that a more human-sounding voice is is preferred over an artificial or robotic voice. Sebastian
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 09:44:27 UTC