- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 23:51:34 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
On 10 Dec 2010, at 23:09, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > Yes, but if you consider square brackets to represent grouping, then > the > examples in the draft do not match the grammar, `voice-family: male 2` > for instance is not valid because <age> is not optional but omitted in > the example. However, it would match if you read (some of the) square > brackets to represent optionality. I do agree that the Working Group > does not seem to have addressed my comment yet. The <age> and <number> fields of the "voice-family" CSS 3 Speech property [1] were added to the fields specified by CSS 2.1 Aural style sheets [2]. There seems to be a typo in the CSS 3 grammar indeed, as the examples are correct (they are backward compatible with the CSS 2.1 notation). I would suggest the following errata (line breaks for clarity, "xxx" is the exact duplicate of line #2): ---------------- [xxx,]* [[<specific-voice> | [<age>? <generic-voice>]] <number>?] | inherit ---------------- ...but actually I am questioning the use of the <number> discriminator based on a <specific-voice>. I can understand the selection logic based on a <generic-voice>, but I am not sure how the "preferred variant" heuristics can apply to a specific voice instance. Therefore I hereby present the errata of the errata: ---------------- [xxx,]* [<specific-voice> | [<age>? <generic-voice> <number>?]] | inherit ---------------- Comments welcome. Regards, Daniel [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-speech/#voice-family [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/aural.html#propdef-voice-family
Received on Friday, 10 December 2010 23:52:10 UTC