W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Proposal for fixing race conditions

From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 22:15:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CANTur_4NcDq-WLpiCxZMOj0u75aHb58jcDewFNdmDuKUdcOPDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>, WG <public-audio@w3.org>, "K. Gadd" <kg@luminance.org>, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
> If you consider neutering undesirable, you should have tried to block its
> introduction. Did you provide feedback to Hixie about that? If you feel
> strongly about this, please write to public-html and whatwg (maybe
> public-script-coord) explaining your position and asking them not to add
> new usage of neutering. This is not a good forum to make that kind of
> architectural decision.
> Actually, this is precisely the right forum to make that kind of
> architectural decision about the Web Audio API.  If anything, this is the
> wrong forum to bring up the example of Workers and try to shoe-horn
> decisions made in that context into this one.

But Web Audio is part of the Web platform, and its architecture is inspired
by and built on the same building blocks as other parts of the Web platform.

Also, given the current effort to port WebGL and 2D canvas to Workers,
there will probably be demand for Web Audio in Workers, soon.  In fact,
this was recently discussed within Mozilla.  So I don't believe that the
mention of Workers is inappropriate here.

Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 02:16:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:10 UTC