- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:44:25 -0700
- To: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wednesday 2011-07-06 22:34 +0100, Daniel Weck wrote: > > On 29 Jun 2011, at 23:43, L. David Baron wrote: > > >http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/#voice-volume defines a relative > >'dB' unit (which does make sense as a relative unit), which > >CSS-ISSUE-184 proposes to move to css3-values. > > > >However, the 'voice-volume' property then says its computed value is > >"specified value", which doesn't make sense for relative values. In > >particular, an element with 'voice-volume: +5dB' should have a > >different computed value depending on what its inherited value was. > > > >We've had lots of problems in the past when we had properties whose > >computed values couldn't be represented as valid syntax for the > >property. I think adding another such case (I think we've fixed the > >existing ones, e.g., with the 'font-weight' changes in CSS 2.1) is a > >bad idea. So I think if you want relative units in this manner, you > >should also have a syntax for combining them with the possible > >absolute values. > > I understand the problem you are describing, but I can't figure-out > a way to solve it. Absolute values for the audio amplitude level are > materialized via the x-soft, soft, medium, loud, x-loud keywords, > but this is still dependent on the selected voice instance (and it > is linked to the perceived loudness, i.e. to the user). I think the simplest way to solve it is to allow compound values like 'soft +5dB'. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 22:44:50 UTC