Re: TPAC F2F and Spec Proposals (was: Attendance for the AudioWG F2F meeting on Monday, 31 October)

>From a web developers point of view they seem to be enabling very
different solutions.  

Web Audio seems as it's name suggests focused solely on audio and
delivers a rich framework for realtime audio processing and
synthesizing.

MediaStream Processing seems like a "simpler" solution, yet it delivers
a more integrated stream solution across both audio and video.

I could imagine treating Web Audio as a layer on top of the MediaStream
Processing API linked together through the <audio> HTMLMediaElement.  
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/webaudio/specification.html#AudioElementIntegration-section
http://hg.mozilla.org/users/rocallahan_mozilla.com/specs/raw-file/tip/StreamProcessing/StreamProcessing.html#media-elements 

In fact the MediaStream Processing API proposal even suggests this type
of layering:

        The API presented here does not include a library of "native"
        effects; those should be added as a clean extension to
        StreamProcessor, perhaps as a "level 2" spec.
        
So from a web dev's point of view it would be nice to have the freedom
to stack these two solutions like this.

But if only one were to be adopted then the MediaStream Processing API
would open up a much wider range of opportunities/innovations and seems
like it could work more seamlessly with webrtc.

roBman


On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 12:51 -0400, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, folks-
> 
> We are still planning to hold a TPAC F2F; we have confirmations from 
> Alistair, Chris Rogers, Thierry, and myself, and we are also planning to 
> meet with the Web RTC folks.  The Audio WG F2f may be short, but I 
> believe there are important matters to be resolved there.
> 
> I think it's crucial to have someone from Mozilla there as well, since 
> that is where the chief disagreement with Google's approach lies.  I 
> understand that neither Rob nor Matthew can attend... is there someone 
> else from Mozilla who could represent this viewpoint at TPAC?
> 
> In the meantime, it would be good to have more discussion on this list 
> about the similarities, differences, and relative merits of the 2 
> proposals on the table:
> 
> * Google's Web Audio
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/webaudio/specification.html
> 
> * Mozilla's MediaStream Processing API
> http://hg.mozilla.org/users/rocallahan_mozilla.com/specs/raw-file/tip/StreamProcessing/StreamProcessing.html
> 
> 
> I'm especially interested in understanding the implementation status of 
> the various proposals, and in hearing how well they work with the Web 
> RTC spec.  Also, are these specs incompatible, or are they just 
> different facets of the general approach, and can they be integrated 
> together in some way?
> 
> 
> Thanks-
> -Doug
> 
> On 10/6/11 10:02 AM, Joe Berkovitz wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As much as I would like to attend this F2F, I have a prior commitment at
> > another event that cannot be changed.
> >
> > ...Joe
> >
> > On Oct 6, 2011 1:29 AM, "Thierry MICHEL" <tmichel@w3.org
> > <mailto:tmichel@w3.org>> wrote:
> >  > Hi all,
> >  >
> >  > Following Doug's email about TPAC registration in Santa Clara
> >  > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2011JulSep/0037.html
> >  >
> >  > Attendance for the Audio Working Group F2F meeting on Monday, 31 October
> >  > is still *very low*: Only two participants
> >  > - Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org <mailto:tmichel@w3.org>> (W3C/ERCIM)
> >  > - Alistair MacDonald <al@signedon.com <mailto:al@signedon.com>> (W3C
> > Invited Experts)
> >  >
> >  > If you plan to attend this meeting please voice now.
> >  >
> >  > If attendance remains at this critical level, we will have to cancel
> >  > this F2F meeting, to avoid extra costs.
> >  >
> >  > Thierry.
> >  >
> >  >
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 22:33:18 UTC