W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > January to March 2012

RE: MIDI enumeration (was: Re: getUserMedia use cases)

From: Tom White \(MMA\) <lists@midi.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:13:06 -0800
To: "'Joseph Berkovitz'" <joe@noteflight.com>, "'Chris Wilson'" <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: "'Robin Berjon'" <robin@berjon.com>, <public-audio@w3.org>, "'Dom Hazael-Massieux'" <dom@w3.org>, <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <006F3632064248ABA066070DF14558F6@TWTHINK>
For expediency I think I can agree with Joe on all points, but I'd like to
have some more MMA members weigh-in before we all commit to something...
 
- TW

Questions for the MIDI devs here-
- Is the "synth" output designation in Windows useful?  The #voices, type of
synth, etc?  Seems a bit overdone, to me.  It would seem like being able to
tell "this is a software synth" would be useful - although

Based on what I've seen so far I think it would be best to make
synth-description metadata into a v2 thing, since in order to be actually
useful my sense is that developers need much more info than voice count and
hardware-vs-software.



- How about the MIDI device manufacturer/product ID?  Driver version #?

I think that is essential because one needs to expose some user-visible info
in a device choice UI to know what device is being selected, if one wishes
to drill down below the simple logical name level.  (For example the Java
MIDI API on Mac OS X often exposes device names like "KEYBOARD" which is not
terribly descriptive.)



- Windows MIDI mapper.  This always seemed overblown to me; and, of course,
you can just use it as a device in Windows.  I don't think we need special
exposure, as in the Windows APIs.  Thoughts?

Agreed, I would rather not see this included as it is a complicating factor
and doesn't add value to the use cases that feel most important.


...Joe
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 21:13:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 February 2012 21:13:55 GMT