RE: http://www.w3.org/TR/speech-synthesis

Thanks for the note Jim .

A couple of points in reply.
I don't understand your use of the term scripting language.
Neither XSLT nor XSL fall into that category as I understand them.
Nowhere within XSLT is the word scripting mentioned.
XSLT defines itself as ' a language for transforming XML documents into
other XML documents.'



> As I recall, the basic reasons Workin Group members did not 
> choose XSLT
> included members feeling uncomfortable with the new XSLT, a 
> large ramp-up
> effort to use XSLT, and additional implmentation effort for XSLT when
> implmenetations of other scripting languages already exist. 

Point noted though I fail to see the relevance.

Your spec, para 1.3.
<quote>Interoperability with Aural CSS: The speech synthesis markup language
is a final form representation that can be produced when XSLT is applied to
XHTML with ACSS. ACSS is covered in Section 19 of the Cascading Style
Sheets, level 2 CSS2 Specification (12-May-1998). This usage of speech
synthesis facilitates improved accessibility to existing HTML and XHTML
content.</quote>

was the source of my concern. Since the aural styling of XSL is directly
derived
from that of CSS I simply wondered why you included one, and not the other.

I understand from your comments that your group are not familiar with
the XSL working draft, and can understand that.

Having pointed this out, I would hope that this omission can be rectified
prior to its arrival at the AC-forum for voting. 

Regards DaveP

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2000 03:54:40 UTC