- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:13:21 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/01/2011 10:24 AM, Daniel Weck wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2011, at 01:11, fantasai wrote: >> So it occurs to me that the offsets, because they're computed differently >> at different base values, can't be represented just as a tuple. You'd >> have to represent them as a list, because >> medium + 2st + 200Hz + 2st != medium + 4st + 200Hz > > Yes, I noticed that as soon as you helped me to properly formulate the "computed" CSS value for pitch properties. > >> This seems excessively complicated, > > I wasn't sure about that (I have never implemented a CSS processor), but I am glad to hear your thoughts on this. > >> so I'm wondering if maybe we should have the computed value be either >> * a keyword if only the keyword is specified by itself, otherwise >> * a fixed frequency calculated by converting the keyword value (if any) >> to a frequency based on the voice-family and applying any other >> additions and subtractions > > I think this is a reasonable solution. > >> This means that if you're using anything other than a bare keyword, >> the frequency will inherit absolutely through a voice change, but >> if you're only using a keyword, the frequency will recalculate on >> a voice change. >> Would that be sufficient? > > I have revised the prose and the examples to reflect this calculation rule. # one of the predefined keywords if only the keyword is specified by itself, # otherwise a fixed frequency calculated by converting the keyword value # (if any) to an absolute value based on the current voice-family and by # applying the specified relative offset (if any) I suggest s/predefined/predefined pitch/ /* to be clear 'absolute' isn't included */ s/fixed frequency/absolute frequency/ s/an absolute value/a fixed frequency/ Otherwise looks good to me. :) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 1 August 2011 18:13:51 UTC