- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:02:12 -0400
- To: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, David- David Woolley wrote (on 7/27/2007 3:09 AM): > > ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: >> >> Also, as you are aware, plugins are treated as one group so the user has > > Once you start using plugins you have left the scope of W3C regulation > and you have decided to enter an essentially unregulated market. What? That's not at all true. There are plugins for SVG, MathML, XForms, SMIL (Real, for example), and plenty of other W3C specs. SMIL, in particular, is relevant here. The assumption that major browser vendors have (or should have) a lock on implementations of W3C specs is against the very idea of vendor independence. In fact, a lot of innovation comes from third-party plugins, and that should be encouraged. > In practical terms, plugins are quite likely to completely bypass the > browser when generating sound. Only if the plugin vendor decides to make them so. If they have clear guidance from a W3C specification, they would have the choice to make their plugin a first-class citizen, and everybody would win. Standards are about interoperability, right? I don't understand why Jonathan's request is being met with such resistance (unless, as an earlier poster pointed out, it's his tone). I have yet to hear a sound technical rationale that precludes the idea that CSS should not be able to control sound as well as vision. Perhaps no existing CSS property is suitable, but can't we consider audio properties for a future version of the spec? Even something simple like 'audio-level' with values 0 to 1 would meet most needs. Obviously, this would take a some time to be specified and implemented, and more time still to be widely supported, but will delaying it make it happen any quicker? Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Staff Contact, SVG, CDF, and WebAPI
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 06:02:24 UTC