W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-voice@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis

From: Pawson, David <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:54:44 +0100
Message-ID: <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F03C102@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk>
To: "'Larson, Jim A'" <jim.a.larson@intel.com>, "'www-voice@w3.org'" <www-voice@w3.org>

Thanks for the note Jim .

A couple of points in reply.
I don't understand your use of the term scripting language.
Neither XSLT nor XSL fall into that category as I understand them.
Nowhere within XSLT is the word scripting mentioned.
XSLT defines itself as ' a language for transforming XML documents into
other XML documents.'



> As I recall, the basic reasons Workin Group members did not 
> choose XSLT
> included members feeling uncomfortable with the new XSLT, a 
> large ramp-up
> effort to use XSLT, and additional implmentation effort for XSLT when
> implmenetations of other scripting languages already exist. 

Point noted though I fail to see the relevance.

Your spec, para 1.3.
<quote>Interoperability with Aural CSS: The speech synthesis markup language
is a final form representation that can be produced when XSLT is applied to
XHTML with ACSS. ACSS is covered in Section 19 of the Cascading Style
Sheets, level 2 CSS2 Specification (12-May-1998). This usage of speech
synthesis facilitates improved accessibility to existing HTML and XHTML
content.</quote>

was the source of my concern. Since the aural styling of XSL is directly
derived
from that of CSS I simply wondered why you included one, and not the other.

I understand from your comments that your group are not familiar with
the XSL working draft, and can understand that.

Having pointed this out, I would hope that this omission can be rectified
prior to its arrival at the AC-forum for voting. 

Regards DaveP
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 03:54:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 October 2006 12:48:53 GMT