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

Question on Jer's proposal

From: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:07:44 -0400
Message-Id: <12B9E8AF-0B97-457C-AF76-DD95290507D7@noteflight.com>
To: Jer Noble <jer.noble@apple.com>, WG <public-audio@w3.org>
> I’ve updated the gist <https://gist.github.com/jernoble/6034137> to remove all references to “alternatives” and added a section about memory and performance considerations.

Thanks Jer.

Followon question: is every aspect of your proposal required for it to work? In particular it seems as though the audio-specific Float32Array set(AudioBufferChannel…) method is optional, given the existence of AudioBufferChannel.slice() -- you pretty much say this already in your proposal. I know some folks on the list expressed concerns about any Typed Array API changes since the WG doesn't control those specs. I don't have a feel for how extensions to some API w/r/t a type in another API are viewed in terms of ownership.

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

Noteflight LLC
Boston, Mass.
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere"
Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 21:08:13 UTC

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