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

Re: Adding MIDI APIs to Audio WG Charter (was: MIDI enumeration (was: Re: getUserMedia use cases))

From: Vilson Vieira <vilson@void.cc>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 17:43:55 -0200
Message-ID: <CAPzw4PZqCZnrSB7mOoVnUGHOeCvOd8uzPJGngywpQW7-jZLbmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>, public-audio@w3.org
Hi all,

when I think in MIDI devices as input in the browser I just think in a
wrapper API to a MIDI lib like PortMidi. Am I wrong?


2012/2/6 Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>

> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski <
> jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I put together a gist in the form of IDL of what MIDI in the browser
>> could look like, respective of MediaStreams Processing API and getUserMedia
>> API. Excuse my weak skills in IDL, I hope it suffices to introduce my idea.
>> It's also a bit incomplete, for example, it doesn't describe how to
>> actually push the midi stream to the MediaStreamProcessor, because I
>> haven't thought of a good way to do it yet. I also included an example
>> usage.
>> https://gist.github.com/1752949
>> Feedback appreciated.
> To make sure you can get MIDI data for all input streams to a
> ProcessedMediaStream, I'd give each MediaInputBuffer an array of MIDIEvent
> objects comprising the MIDI data for the first MIDI track, and give
> ProcessMediaEvent a writeMIDI() method that lets you write an array of
> MIDIEvents to the stream output. Maybe it's necessary to support multiple
> output MIDI tracks for a single stream?
> Also, ProcessMediaEvent already has an 'inputTime', which probably means
> the same thing as "sampleTime".
> We also need to discuss whether main-thread access to MIDI data streams is
> worth having. Most of the time you want the latency and performance
> benefits of handling the data in a Worker, and it's trivial to have a
> worker send and receive data to the main thread if needed, so a dedicated
> main-thread API may not be needed.
> There's a whole separate conversation to be had about how devices should
> be accessed and enumerated and how the UI could work. This is mostly an
> API-independent issue. In general it's probably best if the app can specify
> its requirements declaratively up front --- e.g., the sort of devices it
> wants to talk to --- and let the browser, interacting with the user, decide
> which devices to connect to (and remember that decision between runs). That
> reduces the amount of trust the user has to give the app.
> Rob
> --
> "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
> in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
> our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not
> sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John
> 1:8-10]

Vilson Vieira


((( http://automata.cc )))

((( http://musa.cc )))
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 19:48:16 UTC

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