- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:24:33 +0000
- To: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Errata and mea culpa: I inadvertently introduced a relationship with "visibility", here is the reply I sent to another email regarding this issue: On 5 Feb 2011, at 18:20, fantasai wrote: > I don't think 'visibility' should affect 'voice-volume'. It's > explicitly > a visual control, and as has been mentioned before, while silence is > analogous to invisibility, it's not a useful behavior in the aural > dimension. My bad, I injected this in my todo list following the group's conference call (having briefly talked about "visibility"), when in fact it wasn't destined to be part of the proposed specification, but merely just a potential area of further discussion. Fixed in the latest draft. Regards, Dan On 5 Feb 2011, at 12:23, Daniel Weck wrote: > The recent introduction of the 'speakability' property clarifies the > implications of "display:none" in the aural dimension. > Similarly, the new 'auto' value of the 'voice-volume' property > explicitly defines a relationship with the 'visibility' property > from the visual canvas. > > Please review the proposal [1], including the note at the very > bottom of the property description (about the analogy between > "'visibility' versus 'display'" and "'voice-volume' versus > 'speakability'"). > > Regards, Daniel > > [1] > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/#voice-volume Daniel Weck daniel.weck@gmail.com
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 00:25:11 UTC