W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2012

[Bug 19561] WaveTable is poorly named

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:56:01 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-19561-5429-BWOwmUowFt@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19561

Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #6 from Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think I'm with Chris Wilson here. I find it a bit counterintuitive to have
> "Wave" in the name at all, since to me, a wave is a time domain thing but
> the WaveTable object holds frequency domain data (it's the OscillatorNode
> that produces the wave, not the WaveTable object).
> 
> More precisely, the data held in the object is the Fourier series of a
> periodic wave, but I guess PeriodicWaveFourierSeries is a bit too wordy to
> be practical?
> 
> As usual, interface naming is about the hardest thing you can do in computer
> science ;)
> 
> Here's another thought: You could treat the WaveTable object in a way that
> is independent of frequency/time domain. For instance, if the interface
> provided a way to set the object state from a time domain signal as well as
> from a frequency domain signal, and let it be up to the implementation to
> choose how to store the data internally (could be frequency domain for hi
> quality synthesis or time domain for low quality synthesis), and use
> FFT/IFFT internally for the setters, as appropriate for the implementation.
> 
> If so, I think "PeriodicWave" would be a very fitting name.

Actually, the object as it's currently implemented in WebKit *does* internally
represent the data in the time-domain (in multiple tables to avoid aliasing at
different playback rates -- this is an implementation technique I can share
more details about...).  And I *do* think it's conceivable that we could have a
way to create these objects given a time-domain array of data.

So this object isn't really tied to frequency-domain or time-domain and the
current way of constructing it is simply a matter of convenience.

So I hope that "PeriodicWave" will be a good name.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 19:56:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:03 UTC