- From: Mary Holstege <holstege@kset.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:57:41 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
I think the draft is very interesting and has a lot of good ideas in it. And yet... I just can't escape the feeling that attributes such as 'pitch-range' and 'richness' look a lot like attributes such as 'serif' or 'dpi'. That is: they more properly belong in a font (voice) definition than in a style sheet specification. In setting styles for rendering a document visually, we pick "Times" or "Helvetica" or "Gothic" etc. because we know that the font family has certain affectual characteristics that match our needs. Similarly, one should be able to select the vocal equivalent of "Times" or "Gothic" for the same purpose in the same fashion. More radically, given that typographical features such as bold, italic, and font size were invented precisely to render certain auditory features in a visual medium, surely the reverse is true? Can we not organize voices in a manner analogous to fonts, indexed by a few basic attributes such as volume, pitch, and stress rather than trying to make every possible variation of speech available at the style sheet level. I suspect this would make the style sheet too cumbersome to use (both from an implementor's and an author's standpoint). <out-there-radical-notion> Indeed --- is it possible to use the *same* style sheet for voice and treat it as a font mapping problem? Line spacing and hard line breaks are pauses (map points to suitable time units), flush left is send-to-left-channel, left margin is... </out-there-radical-notion> Eh. Probably not. Still, is what you've done invent a set of *style* sheet attributes or a set of *rendering* attributes? This is the difference between, say, a word processor style definition and a line drawing specification in that same word processor. -- Mary Holstege@kset.com Mary Holstege, PhD Manager, Online Engineering KnowledgeSet Corporation 555 Ellis Street Tel: (415) 254-5452 Mountain View, CA 94043 FAX: (415) 254-5451
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 1996 11:57:55 UTC