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

Re: Minutes of Audio WG meeting, 2012-02-06

From: Gabriel Cardoso <gcardoso.w@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:01:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CADSDpirJUq0N+G4UdJ+evkQPEjGYZsbu_nR5a5QdXRezcvKoHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: public-audio@w3.org
Hi all,

A +1 for a wiki page describing the differences between the two APIs. As a
(newbie) audio app developer, I have trouble diving into the MediaStream
Processing specs. I also agree that having short examples implemented in
each APIs would be a good solution.

Just giving my opinion here about MIDI in the Music Production Tool use
case, I think that being able to create MIDI tracks, upload MIDI files,
editing them with a piano roll and playing them with a VST-like instrument
are sufficient features. No need to access the MIDI devices in my point of
view.

Thanks for the summary.

Bye,

Gabriel

2012/2/7 Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>

> Dear all,
>
> The minutes of the Audio Working Group's teleconference held on 6th
> February 2012 are online:
> http://www.w3.org/2012/02/06-**audio-minutes<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/06-audio-minutes>
>
>
> The group is getting large and we may be changing our teleconference time.
> Please give your preference for your typical week in the online poll:
> http://www.doodle.com/**i4pecambe7a5az64<http://www.doodle.com/i4pecambe7a5az64>
>
>
> Meeting Summary:
>
> * We welcomed a few new participants, including Phil Burk.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-audio/**2012JanMar/0158.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JanMar/0158.html>
>
> * A follow-up on the mailing-list discussion about getUserMedia. Phil and
> ROC will be participating in the TF (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
> Public/public-media-capture/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/>)
> and act as liaison with our group.
>
> * One of the next steps in our work on Use Cases and Requirements is to
> prioritize them. It was suggested that the group gives each UC a certain
> priority level, which would then affect which requirements are needed in
> the first version of our spec(s). Since the UC&R document has changed a lot
> during and since the f2f meeting, the whole group is strongly encouraged to
> review it. http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/**wiki/Use_Cases_and_**
> Requirements<http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements>
>
> * There is a need to better understand the differences between the Web
> Audio API and Media Streams API - expressed both by people interested in
> our work, and by many in our group. A wiki document has been started, all
> (esp the two spec editors) encouraged to contribute to it, focusing
> especially on how the two proposals approach our use cases differently.
> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/**wiki/Spec_Differences<http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Spec_Differences>
>
>
> Best,
> --
> Olivier
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 10:06:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 February 2012 10:06:39 GMT