Re: WebMidi

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Chris is actually working on joining the group, so I suppose let's see what
he says - but either way that isn't super important to me as much as just
getting something at this level where we can say "that's a prollyfill
because it...."  Once we have a few of these, more will fall out quickly
and easily.



> >
> > 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).
> >
>

This is exactly the part of the discussion that i think is worth having.
 If you xRequest - do you get MIDIEvent or xMIDIEvent... If you get the
later, then what you describe is not so much a problem, right?



> > 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.
>
>
No - that's exactly what I mean actually - a friendly way to mix them
together nicely so it's easy to build and track that stuff...



> --
> Marcos Caceres Thursday
>
>
>
>


-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com