Re: BGSOUND, no need for it
To: "Scott E. Preece" <email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org>, Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr
Subject: Re: BGSOUND, no need for it
From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:56:50 +0200 (DST)
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From email@example.com Wed Aug 28 10: 57:38 1996
In-Reply-To: "Scott E. Preece" <firstname.lastname@example.org> "Re: BGSOUND, no need for it" (Aug 28, 8:37am)
X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.2 10apr95 MediaMail)
On Aug 28, 8:37am, Scott E. Preece wrote:
> From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
> | I see no need to invent a different syntax and a whole new stylesheet
> | language just to do non-visual rendering. I can confidently state that
> | CSS was not designed to be limited to what you call a "DTP metaphor".
> Well, it does seem possible that style information for audio, or other,
> domains *might* need different selection mechanisms or degrees of
> parameterizability, and that in some instances other domains might
> require more maniipulation capability than CSS provides (an author might
> be satisfied with CSS for text styling, but need to use DSSSL to do
> content modifications for audio presentation, for instance).
We may perhaps be talking slightly at cross purposes. The original author
appeared to be suggesting that CSS can only be used for visual presentation and
that for any other medium, another notation would be required. I refuted this.
You seem to be suggesting, on the other hand, that a more powerful stylesheet
language than CSS might be desirable in some instances, which may well be the
case and I have no argument with this.
Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C
email@example.com 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France