Sent by The Moose on 12 February 2003 09:09
John,
| Aural is deprecated in CSS2.1, but still alive in CSS2.
What was the reason for that change? Was it impossible (undesirable?) for instance to simply expand
the "aural" module? I hope it is not only an easthetic and/or linguistic reason for an alteration
like that within the same CSS generation...
| It says:
| A.1 The media type 'aural'
| We expect that in a future level of CSS there will be new properties and
| values defined for speech output. Therefore CSS 2.1 reserves the 'speech'
| media type (see chapter 7, "Media types"), but does not yet define which
| properties do or do not apply to it.
| The properties in this appendix apply to a media type 'aural', that was
| introduced in CSS2. The type 'aural' is now deprecated.
| This means that a style sheet such as
|
| @media speech {
| body { voice-family: Paul }
| }
| is valid, but that its meaning is not defined by CSS 2.1, while
|
| @media aural {
| body { voice-family: Paul }
| }
| is deprecated, but defined by this appendix.
|
| See http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030128/aural.html
|
| And I'm confused as well
|
| John
Yes, it induces a state of nothingness in between, sort of like a reserved domain name with no
content. I know that what is deprecated might be used still, but I wonder what are the consequences
of this change? Who is listening? If nothing *is* defined for "speech", does that 'allow' what is
defined for something else (aural)?
thanks for the reply,
Wojtek
