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
audio?


-Olli


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:11:19 GMT