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

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

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:11:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqV-UpicbYeBZXtju5d1Q6K52X78POb63P8CTRCzUV0rVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Cardoso <gcardoso.w@gmail.com>, public-audio@w3.org
Ah, I see.

Of course, this would be possible - I think writing a standard MIDI file
player in Javascript would be pretty straightforward, having just
re-familiarized myself with the format briefly.  Independent of the simple
"play this SMF" (i.e., the "media player" scenario), I think the DAW
implementor is going to want to be tightly integrated with that code,
though - I think it would be better to have that as a helper JS library
that they could hack apart.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Gabriel Cardoso <gcardoso.w@gmail.com>wrote:

> Chris,
>
> I was more thinking about the final application : an online workstation
> with MIDI tracks (containing MIDI sequences) and audio tracks (containing
> audio clips) playing together.
>
> My first thought was to have some kind of library allowing to load a MIDI
> sequence and start it at certain time and a certain tempo. The sound could
> be rendered by a Javascript synth for example. Actually, it is the approach
> described by C. Rogers here
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JanMar/0105.html (if
> I didn't misunderstood it)
>
> So, I am not sure about what I'm suggesting here, but if the MIDI feature
> is added to the UC3, the Audio API should
> facilitate synchronization between MIDI and audio. Would it be illogical to
> have a separate API for MIDI ?
>
> Gabriel
>
>
>
> Le 7 févr. 2012 19:44, "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com> a écrit :
>
> Gabriel,
>>
>> that kind of sounds like you're suggesting that you want an API that is
>> more oriented around editing Standard MIDI Files, and then having
>> <audio>-like media playback control?
>>
>>  On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Gabriel Cardoso <gcardoso.w@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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 Wednesday, 8 February 2012 18:16:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 February 2012 18:16:13 GMT