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

Re: Comments from PFWG on CSS3 Speech Module

From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:23:08 +0100
Message-Id: <CB030FCB-3C9A-44FA-9E40-E428F961136B@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, List WAI Liaison <wai-liaison@w3.org>, List WAI PF <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "paul.bagshaw@orange.com> <paul.bagshaw@orange.com" <paul.bagshaw@orange.com>, www-voice@w3.org

On 15 Oct 2011, at 02:35, fantasai wrote:
> Hm, I'd say, if there isn't a use case, and it seems likely to have
> implementation and/or usability issues, and nobody has expressed a
> desire to have it, then it seems fair to drop it until someone
> requests it. We can copy the spec prose from the LC into a later
> spec if it turns out it's needed. What do you think?

(CC Voice-Browser group)

I assumed that the "at-risk" status was the most appropriate device to ensure that unwanted features do not end-up cluttering the final specification. The 'voice-duration' property has been in the CSS Speech drafts for a very long time [1], and it corresponds to a "non-disputed" feature in SSML. I wonder if removing it at this stage of the design process is judicious. Wouldn't running the course "as normal" be equally effective? (i.e. CR references implementations, or lack thereof)


Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 09:24:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:05 UTC