W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: State of issues as of 2012-05-30

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:29:35 +0200
To: "Audio Working Group" <public-audio@w3.org>, "olivier Thereaux" <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Message-ID: <op.we77rlr8sr6mfa@kirk>
On Wed, 30 May 2012 22:57:41 +0200, olivier Thereaux  
<olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello group,
>
> Here are the current issues in our tracker which are either OPEN or  
> PENDING REVIEW.
>
>
> * ISSUE-24 - Undefined behavior for circular graphs - is OPEN but we  
> have reached a Resolution on it during our teleconference today. Barring  
> any objection, the editor will be reflecting the resolution in the draft  
> spec and will open it for review.
>
> The following are Pending Review - please take some time to review the  
> proposed solution. Barring any objection these issues will be closed one  
> week after the review started.
>
> * ISSUE-69 - Linear convolution effect is defined by Wikipedia
> * ISSUE-49 - AudioBuffer direct access
> * ISSUE-53 - noteOn and noteOff interaction
> * ISSUE-34 - AudioParam.name underspecified
> * ISSUE-19 - Define sampling format
> * ISSUE-33 - AudioDestinationNode.numberOfChannels

We've replied to all of these now. ISSUE-34 is OK for us, the rest require  
additional changes.

> The following are Open - Some are being worked on by the editor; many  
> could benefit from practical proposals.
>
> * ISSUE-17 - float/double inconsistency
> * ISSUE-14 - Default value for bufferSize in createJavaScriptNode()
> * ISSUE-11 - Offline Audio Context
> * ISSUE-28 - Script interaction (setting and reading) of most state is  
> under defined
> * ISSUE-32 - AudioNode context and upstream/downstream references
> * ISSUE-31 - AudioContext.activeSourceCount
> * ISSUE-42 - AudioParam sampling is undefined

We have followed up on those of the above that we raised. Some  
clarification on workflow would be appreciated, though. In the HTML WG,  
the editor asks to only be given the problems and/or use cases and will  
decide on the solution and all editorial issues. We could write exactly  
the spec text that we think should be used, but is that what Chris wants?  
Specs mixing the editorial style of multiple editors don't read well...

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 13:30:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 13:30:06 GMT