W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

RE: [css3-speech] ISSUE-153 speak: none; usage incompatible with other values of speak

From: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 07:20:39 -0500
To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>, Mark Kenny <beingmrkenny@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, Charles Belov <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Message-ID: <A592E245B36A8949BDB0A302B375FB4E0AAF13A4F5@MAILR001.mail.lan>
Could we add a 'force' value, so that it can override 'none' in descendant elements?

Current HTML5/EPUB3 does not allow rb element within ruby element. It is being discussed[1], but we haven't get conclusions yet. If this issue wasn't resolved, we might end up with this mark up:


To skip base-text while speakable ruby-text, UA style sheet would want to use styles like this:

ruby { speakability: none; }
rt { speakability: force; }

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10830


-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Weck
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 9:15 PM
To: Mark Kenny; www-style@w3.org list; Charles Belov
Subject: Re: [css3-speech] ISSUE-153 speak: none; usage incompatible with other values of speak

The latest editor's draft now includes a new 'speakability' property.  
The 'none' value of the 'speak' property has been removed. Note how "speakability:none" is analogous to "display:none" (the prose is near- identical).

Please review [1].

Regards, Daniel


On 23 Jan 2011, at 06:05, fantasai wrote:
> Maybe something like
> speakability: auto | none | normal
> inherits: yes
> initial: auto
> auto - Computes to 'none' when 'display' is 'none'.
>       A computed value of 'auto' yields a used value of 'none'.
> none - The element is not rendered aurally. (It's pauses, cues, rests,
>       and content are not rendered.)
> normal - The element is rendered aurally.
> That would hook into "display: none" rules when wanted, but allow 
> other interpretations as wanted.
> (I can't say I've fully thought this through, however.)
> ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 12:20:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:55 UTC