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

was the source of my concern. Since the aural styling of XSL is directly
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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:34 UTC