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

[Bug 18764] MIDI messages don't all have a channel, and status should be part of data.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:58:47 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TB7Jv-0000oo-Ka@jessica.w3.org>
To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18764

--- Comment #28 from Chris Wilson <cwilso@gmail.com> 2012-09-10 16:58:47 UTC ---
 (In reply to comment #26)
> > 1) I disagree that it's not worthwhile to add a simpler API to skip six lines
> > of code in a very common use case,
> 
> I've yet to see a demonstration that this is a more common case than any other.

How can I demonstrate evidence that sending MIDI note on/off/CC/realtime
messages is more common than sending sysex?  Obviously, pointers to my Github
projects would seem biased.  :)

I know that a large part of my motivation in sparking getting a Web MIDI API
off the ground was wanting to tie real-world controllers to the Web Audio API;
as I have a pile of MIDI synths (and mixers, effect units, etc) in my studio,
obviously I'd like web sequencing to work well, too, but of course everyone has
their biases.  I think we should be optimizing (not SOLELY optimizing, but
optimizing) around the use case of developers wanting to enable controllers
(not just controllerist, but keyboards, drum pads, mixers, lighting, guitar
controllers, etc as well) - and I do think that case heavily uses short
messages (as they construct the messages on the fly most of the time, rather
than having pre-recorded sequences of data.)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 16:58:49 GMT