Re: WebMidi

Hi Brian,  

On, December 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:

> Given the discussion yesterday (beginning here[1]) I'd like to open up for group discussion:
>  
> 1) how we'd make Chris' WebMIDIAPI[2] fit the discussion above to be a prollyfill according to the definitions I think we've agreed to. It seems to me that according to the draft, most of it is available through the navigator object via navigator.requestMIDIAccess.
I think Chris' solution is serving as a "reference implementation" for the Web MIDI API (this is distinctly different to a prollyfill or polyfill). As such, it's in a difficult position in that it has to primarily serve the needs of the Web Audio Working Group: the needs are mainly to do with sanity checking the usability and implementability of the API, and enabling verification of tests when the group starts doing conformance testing.  

So, I would not be in favor in asking Chris to change his implementation.  

However, my own version of the API (which does not follow the spec) is more in line with a prollyfill. I'd be happy to change mine to become a prollyfill proper.    
>  
> Would this be as simple as changing that to xRequestMIDIAccess, or would (likely IMO) you really want the objects returned to be prefixed as well so that it is fairly obvious in the code what you are doing?

Kinda… for this API that might be ok. Some parts cannot be prefixed because they extend host objects (e.g., MIDIEvent).  
>  
> 2) Whether there are future common bits (like window.performance.now) which we'd also like to consider how to make available easily for things like this - and what form(s) might those take to make it both easy and light for authors of prollyfills.

Ok, so again we come back to Clint's discussion… Performance is a "W3C Recommendation" as of "17 December 2012", so that's now "polyfill". No need to prefix.  

--  
Marcos Caceres Thursday

Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 16:38:36 UTC