W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: TPAC F2F and Spec Proposals

From: Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:10:44 +0300
Message-ID: <4E9D6CC4.5090406@helsinki.fi>
To: Anthony Bowyer-Lowe <anthony@lowbroweye.com>
CC: public-audio@w3.org
On 10/18/2011 02:35 PM, Anthony Bowyer-Lowe wrote:
> On 18 October 2011 11:05, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi
> <mailto:Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>> wrote:
>     IMHO a spec which defines an API shouldn't leave out the part which
>     actually defines what the API does.
>     Currently it is not defined what the output of the API is.
>     That makes it impossible to implement fully compatible implementations.
>     It makes also automated testing pretty much impossible, and manual
>     testing would rely heavily on user's perception.
> I hear you and agree, but the status of Chris' spec is currently that of
> a draft proposal so I accept vagueness in these areas whilst more
> important high-level architectural details are discussed.
Note, I continued this thread when it was mentioned that
"it doesn't have is a library of native effects like the
Web Audio API has" ;)

If we take effects out from Web Audio API, what are the main differences 
between MediaStream API and Web Audio API, and
are there reasons to have two separate APIs to process


> Anthony.
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:11:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:49:57 UTC