- From: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 20:17:46 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. skrev: > Aural never attracted implementations. I dunno who, if any, does Speech. > > It's just not a very interesting thing to style. The defaults are fine. Visuals have much greater complexity. And there is the obvious problem of a lack in underlying technology. You can't have a standard feature set if there is no consensus on how to render. I'm no speech expert, but the fact that there are easily multiple ways to perform voice synthesis means that it's no simple matter to convert the data files between products. There is no interchangeable "voice" structure. Pixels are pixels, lines are lines, vertexes are vertexes and samples are samples, but voices? What are those?
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 18:18:20 UTC