- From: Richard Gardner <rgardner@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 13:18:16 -0700
- To: "'Carl Morris'" <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
- Cc: "'www-style@w3.org'" <www-style@w3.org>
While I agree in part with the essence of what you're saying about BGSOUND, I think such things as sounds that play on hyperlink etc. would be better controlled through a pseudo-class in the author/user style sheets e.g. A:hyperlink { bgsound:... } Then, if the user style sheet won, rather than the author style sheet ( a big bug bear in my opinion ... ) the user could supply a set of preferred audio files for a more consistant browsing experience. While the EMBED tag idea has a more generic implementation for supplying background audio, among other things, it fails to address the requirement for the user to have finer control over their browsing experience. >---------- >From: Carl Morris[SMTP:msftrncs@htcnet.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 24, 1996 2:46 PM >To: Paul Prescod >Cc: WWW Style List >Subject: Re: BGSOUND, no need for it > >| From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> >| To: Jason O'Brien <jaobrien@fttnet.com>; www-style@w3.org; >www-html@w3.org >| Subject: RE: BGSOUND, no need for it >| Date: Saturday, August 24, 1996 5:24 AM >| > >If we are going to blow things out of the water, lets do it fairly uh? > >| >Why NOT have a BGSOUND tag? >| >| BGSOUND, like BGCOLOR, should be a style-sheet thing. I cannot >imagine a >| circumstance where a sound that starts playing when a page is >downloaded >| could be considered anything other than fluff. If a sound is >important to >| the meaning of a web page, it should be embedded or linked to so that >the >| user is in control of when it plays. If the meaning of the sound >isn't >| important enough for you to allow the user that control, then it is >just >| presentation and should be in the style sheet. > >And since when should HTML be only content... theres no way... already, >just embeding CSS1 into HTML files causes HTML to hold style... a CSS1 >document is not content! > >| > Microsoft has shown how easily it can be >| >added to rendering and how efficiently it can be used -- I think a > >| >rendering tag for background sound or music when a page opens is a >very >| >good and useful feature to add without even having to mess with java >-- >| >when you say that BGSOUND shouldn't even be a part of HTML, then >what >| >about EMBED or IMG -- why have images inserted with HTML, according >to >| >your argument? >| >| Embedded images or objects COULD be crucial information in a Web >page. >| Although web developers should work their butt off to be >cross-platform, >| some content requires multimedia features. An art gallery without >pictures >| is not very meaningful. That is why <EMBED SRC="mysound.wav"> is also >very >| important. The ALT content of the EMBED and IMG tags allow users to >know >| what they are missing so that they can decide whether to download it >or not. >| BGSOUND is a completely different thing, because it is presentation, >not >| content. > > >Images COULD be crucial information (ie CONTENT) BUT usually isn't! >BGSOUND is not different from EMBED... EMBED was a bad bad bad idea on >netscape's part... Its too broad with no backwards compatibility... as >such it can not even be considered better. > >In the real world anyway, once OBJECT passes, everything will be >embeded with OBJECT... these discussions will die off... and HTML will >continue to go were WE the end users WANT it to go... There is no >standards body anywhere that can stop (mark my words!) HTML from >becoming what ever it will... The world right now would rather have >style, then thats what it will be. (Describing content in and of >itself produces its style anyway, so why can't HTML be considered >style? Face to face, HTML is just one very flexible form of style >description...) > >| So you don't mind that they will lose the sound without getting any >ALT >| text? Clearly, then, you either intend to use the BGSOUND element for >| presentation, not for serious content, or you intend for your pages >to >| degrade poorly on non-multimedia computers. Either one goes against >the >| goals of HTML. > >Like I said above, like EMBED would allow this? Come on! > >| "Tags" are always supposed to define structure. BGSOUND is a >presentational >| attribute. It might make sense to make it an attribute of BODY, or a >CSS >| property of BODY. As a CSS property, it could be used more generally, >for >| instance as a way of "attaching" sound to hypertext links, or even to >page >| actions: I could imagine properties like: > >and since when doesn't structure describe style! People ought to wake >up, look the world square in the face and relise they can't because IT >IS ROUND! Style and content go hand in hand, without one the other >doesn't exist, not in the consumer world anyway. > >| Finally, the style-sheet mechanism allows background sounds to be >added to >| any SGML DTD, not just HTML. All in all, style sheets are the best >place to >| put background sounds. > >Just as a note, there is no backwards compatibility mechanisms in style >sheets yet. Nothing in CSS1 comes close to what the OBJECT tag will... > Does DSSS? If not, maybe that is where people should be looking... >It was mentioned not that long ago that OBJECT's flexibility just >doesn't exist in CSS1 or tags like BODY BACKGROUND and BGSOUND... >before any more elements such as the ones above are proposed that issue >should be covered. > >I also challenge anyone to prove that any tag is style only or isn't at >all style... The arguements on content and style need to thought out >much more carefully... at least as it refers to HTML... > >
Received on Sunday, 25 August 1996 16:18:48 UTC