- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 10:23:08 +0100
- 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) /Daniel [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-speech-20030514/#voice-duration-props
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 09:24:01 UTC