On 31/05/2012 12:28, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > I think 128 samples is a bit unfortunate for authors since they specify > the time in seconds. Couldn't we make this a limit in seconds? This was a large part of our discussion on the call: http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-audio-minutes.html Chris seemed to prefer the idea of a limit in seconds, Philip seemed to expect it would make implementations harder. Others will be able to say this with more authority, but my understanding is: Seconds * Easier for authors * Will sound the same in all implementations regardless of sample rate * May run into issue where limit is too low depending on implementation's sample block size * implementation would probably have to clamp to the closest "block" size anyway Samples * Easier to implement, less risky * May sound slightly different depending on implementation, but should not be noticeable Olivier
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:30:15 GMT