W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2015

Minutes, 9 July 2015 Web Audio telcon

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:40:08 +0200
Message-ID: <819692383.20150709184008@w3.org>
To: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
Hello Audio,


and below as text for stupid bots

                   Audio Working Group Teleconference

09 Jul 2015

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/09-audio-irc


          mdjp, hongchan, joe, ChrisL, cwilso, SteveBeckerMSFT,
          BillHofmann, Daniel, padenot




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]uncommitted issue review
         2. [5]issue 560
         3. [6]test suite update and discussion (Noteflight intern
            Daniel Shaar will join)
         4. [7]spreadsheet on test suite
         5. [8]media capture API progress update
         6. [9]review of issues marked as "Needing Review" that
            require attention to progress
         7. [10]any other business
         8. [11]next meeting
     * [12]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 09 July 2015

uncommitted issue review

   <mdjp> [13]https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/560

     [13] https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/560

   <scribe> scribenick: chrisl

   <scribe> Meeting: WebAudio call

issue 560

   <padenot> java !?

   joe: why does this interact with any of those attributes?

   matt: You are quite right

   joe: we can close this

   <BillHofmann> (Sorry guys, BART delays)

   matt: so its the playbak duration as it changes when you change
   playback rate?

   joe: think commentor is confused on playback rate. happy to
   explain it to them

test suite update and discussion (Noteflight intern Daniel Shaar will

   matt: ok, you do that. leave uncommitted for now

spreadsheet on test suite

   joe: I emailed the speadsheet tha daniel compiled. it tells a
   good story

   daniel: cmpilation of each attr and method, and says what is
   being used in the tests. also all the enums and additional
   informative sections on computation
   ... does not include interactions between parts

   joe: we decided not to take a fine garined, testable assertion
   approach. just looking over the obvious broadly categories of
   attrs, methods and events
   ... not a guarantee of complete assertion coverage

   daniel: also noticed tha among the tests, audio worker has zero
   test coverage. its completely empty

   ChrisL: (audio worker was a later addition, hence no tests and
   ppoor implementation)

   matt: and the spec needs tightened up somewhat, too.

   cwilso: yes, that is waiting for me

   padenot: talked at Moz summit, and have some time to work on it
   now. lots of getting rid of worker and building a lighrter
   ... could work on this soon

   cwilso: great, pressed for time with new quarter. please go
   ahead and then ping me

   padenot: was going to ask if it was ok to put a draft up and
   get feedback

   cwilso: sat with alex russel and andrez(?) about how to better
   implement. had some ideas. no way to load/parse/compile js out
   of thread, in our engine or across engines

   padenot: that should be ok. gecko does it already though :)

   cwilso: happy for you to take a stab at it

   joe: ok lets assign paul to that issue

   padenot: great

   shepazu: note that excel spreadsheets are poor to exchange
   info. maybe a google doc or wiki page

   joe: it was exported from a google doc actually

   matt: happy with either

   shepazu: better to have a persisting link to a live doc

   matt: where do we need to be, to estimate how much work

   joe: need process for adding additional test. and don't know
   how implementors will use it, w3c does not have a driver

   daniel; we have a driver but it does not worjk for the chrome
   and mox tests

   joe: at least everything is in one place

   matt: how would you usethis for testing, paul and hongchan?

   hongchan: you mean using the w3c driver?
   ... generally good idea to have a unifying framework, not sure
   how to integrate that into our chromium test framework though

   matt: need to coordinate new test discovery

   joe: need to hand it off, daniel is not working on this
   ... for rec track process it demonstrates the spec is tested
   and testable, and others can run the tests
   ... also wquestions of how to discover the tests

   shepazu: discussion on pointer events wg, about the same thing.
   ensuring that there is a usable ... so put in touch with those

   daniel: they used intem (? sp ?) which runs all tests on all
   browsers. one issue is that to re-adapt tests to that format
   they need a flat out rewrite using node

   matt; sounds like a good next step

   scribe: any actions around this?

   joe: fornow, not planning for daniel to do more until we have a
   settled direction. higher priority things right now. testing in
   better shape that I thought

   matt: thanks daniel for this, goof to see

   daniel: the pointer events guys used that. w3c uses test
   runner, and will try to see if i can get some chromium and moz
   tests to run in w3c test runner

media capture API progress update

   matt: great, please let us know

   joe; we have a coule of OPR on media capture spec, seem to be
   going ok

   scribe: audio output api dangling as the chairs don't really
   want to do more on audio,m trying to get to last call

   ChrisL: waiting to see what chairs say back to my proposal

   joe: will then make a more involved PR

   ChrisL: (explains how css wg pushes things to a new level to
   avoid impacting last call dates)

   joe: implementation commitment would be helpful to convince
   media capture we need this

   padenot: no specific timeline but definite implementor interest

   <hongchan> sorry muted here locally.

   padenot: can post a traceable commitment
   ... seem to recall this is corret, need to check back and

   matt: sounds like call for implementor support is dealt with,

   joe: will crwate a new PR for audio output and share with the
   group. this is not for now though

   matt: how long?

   joe: august

review of issues marked as "Needing Review" that require attention to

   matt: some issues still marked as needing WG review for v.1



   matt: four issues
   ... three for cwilso - any discussion needed?

   cwilso: looking at them real quick
   ... audio worker paul is on that,532
   ... promises not discussed with tag. noise gate is waiting for
   WG review, proposal made in november
   ... if its ok, I can do a PR

   matt; everyone review the noise gate issue on the list, and
   raise any objections soonish, by next meeting, else assumed

   matt: any other issues needing input to move them forward?

   (no-one raises any)

any other business

   matt: ok, spend the next 30 minutes doing your issues!!!

next meeting

   matt: 23 july

   (general agreement)

   my regrets for that meeting, travelling

   matt; f2f at TPAC monday as originally planned

   ChrisL: aim for 50:50 split

   joe: we want 51%

   shepazu: on web payments, new group. for web annotations, will
   be there mostly but available if needed. chris will handle most
   audio stuff at tpac


   oh, zakim, you obsolete heap of crap

   <shepazu> s/for web annotations, will be there mostly but
   available if needed./I need to be there for web annotations on
   Mon/Tues, but will be available for Audio available if needed./

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]

Best regards,
 Chris  Lilley
 Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 16:40:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 July 2015 16:40:14 UTC