- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@st.jyu.fi>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 19:36:36 +0300
- To: www style <www-style@w3.org>
[The latest version is at <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-speech>.]
Andrew Thompson wrote:
> 2. voice-balance
>
> The prose for this section mentions two properties, 'leftwards' and
> 'rightwards' that are not included in the list of valid values given at
> the beginning of the voice-balance definition. Should be consistent.
>
> In general I approve of this simplification. Its probably actually
> implementable, whereas the previous azimuth model wasn't really
> practical.
azimuth might have been complex to understand but I feel that whatever
gets selected, it should be future-proof enough to support *at least* 2D
positioning of sound (left-right / front-back). I think the speech
module should copy "background-position" here.
voice-balance:
Value: [ [<percentage> | <length> ]{1,3} | [ [left | center |
right] || [front | center | back] || [top | center | bottom] ] ] | inherit
Initial: 50% 0% 50%
Applies to: all elements
Inherited: yes
Percentages: see below
Media: aural
<percentage> [, <percentage> [, <percentage>] ]
(left-right front-back top-bottom): 50% 0% 50% would refer to "centered
both horizontally and vertically and positioned directly in the front of
the listener". The actual distance (delay of sound, possibly
attenuation) set by 100% should be calculated according to the user
agent preferences (user should be allowed to select how wide sound stage
he wants). 0% for left-right position means left, 0% for front-back
means front and 0% for top-bottom means top.
This kind of property allows positioning the sound "inside one's head"
(50% 50% 50%) in addition to the usual in "front of you", "on the left
side", "on top of you" etc.
In the future, the voice balance could be considered as a shortcut for
properties voice-balance-left-right, voice-balance-front-back,
voice-balance-top-bottom or something similar.
Yep, I'm aware that actual implementation would be far away, but let's
not limit the future with lesser syntax.
--
Mikko
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 12:36:38 UTC