W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Resolution to republish MSP as a note

From: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:56:39 +0100
Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, James Wei <james.wei@intel.com>, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Stéphane Letz <letz@grame.fr>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>, Matthew Paradis <matthew.paradis@bbc.co.uk>, Christopher Lowis <Chris.Lowis@bbc.co.uk>
Message-Id: <BAF7CF8C-6792-4476-A594-A7D40589759B@bbc.co.uk>
To: Mark Boas <markb@happyworm.com>

On 9 Aug 2012, at 09:40, Mark Boas wrote:

> I perhaps naively assumed a blend of low and high level could work and this is why I was very happy to see the MSP included as a note and hopefully provide inspiration for the low level features.

I still believe this is the case. 

> Standards are not about vendors, they are about developers.

Sure. Notwithstanding the requests from developers who want to build libraries (useful, but a very specific view of things) the feedback we have received from developers seems to be:

* The high-level access provided by the web audio API is great and makes it easy to audio processing an analysis code easily, today, with very little concern for optimization.

* The moment you want to build anything custom, the API in its current state is not great. I recall my team complaining that the moment you want to do custom processing, you have to basically wrap everything in your own class, and write a lot of boilerplate. [Ping ChrisL/Matt for details.]

The demand is for both, and I suspect this group would benefit from having fewer suggestions that we should go for one XOR the other.

Olivier

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 15:57:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 August 2012 15:57:11 GMT