W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Web Audio API spec review

From: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:06:13 +0200
To: olli@pettay.fi, "Chris Wilson" <cwilso@google.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, "Chris Rogers" <crogers@google.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wed3cno9m77heq@mage-desktop>
Den 2012-05-16 01:54:17 skrev Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>:

> Unless the W3C Recommended API is named "webkitAudioContext", this
> shouldn't be too much of a problem.
> Seriously, though - no, we do not want to arbitrarily break the games and
> other apps that have gone out already using early versions of the Web  
> Audio
> API, but we are committed to migrating those apps over to a standard API
> that works across browsers, whatever that API might be.  While I agree  
> our
> evangelism has not been quite perfect in terms of clearly delineating
> experimental and early APIs, I would point out that in our more recent
> efforts (e.g. recent articles on HTML5Rocks), we've been purposefully
> improving that, and even with that admission, I would not characterize  
> our
> past efforts as heavy evangelism for production apps.  And it currently
> *IS* the only solution for audio processing in Chrome; we certainly hope  
> to
> improve it and turn it into a cross-browser standard API, but we've never
> presented it as such that I know of.
> At any rate - we can absolutely take breaking changes - for some  
> features,
> even under our webkit prefix.  I don't know, to use one example, how
> quickly we could remove "noteOn" after adding "start", under the webkit
> prefix- I wouldn't want to break Angry Birds, etc., although I'm happy to
> go evangelize that they need to change their code for such changes
> (presuming there's an actual reason and it's not gratuitous).  After all,
> that's my job.

I don't really see this as an issue. We could have two audio API:s during  
a transitional period:

* The WebKit prefixed version, which basically stays as it is today and  
continues to support legacy applications that are unlikely to migrate to  
the new API in a timely manner.
* The un-prefixed cross-browser "standard" version.

The fact is that whatever the audio API will look like, it will stay  
around for a very long time - and I think the Web deserves a good,  
sustainable audio API, so let's not push something just because of legacy  
support (there are already too many examples of that in the computer  


> As the standard stabilizes, I'd expect we would all implement unprefixed,
> and it would reflect whatever is in the spec.  If late-breaking changes
> come up, we would have to break people.
> -Chris
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Olli Pettay  
> <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>wrote:
>> On 05/16/2012 02:15 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>  On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Olli Pettay  
>> <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi<mailto:
>>> Olli.Pettay@helsinki.**fi <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi>>> wrote:
>>>    On 05/16/2012 01:26 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>>        One thing that is going to be really important when addressing
>>> this feedback is understanding the existing compatibility constraints.  
>>> As I
>>>        said in an
>>>        earlier email, if Webkit is unwilling to take a change, due to
>>> compatibility concerns, then we probably don't want to take that  
>>> change in
>>> the
>>>        spec either.
>>>    What compatibility concerns? We're talking about an early draft of a
>>> spec, which is even implemented prefixed.
>>>    Changing the spec sure should be possible.
>>> Google has heavily evangelized use of Web Audio in production apps. It
>>> has been presented as *the* solution for audio processing, without  
>>> caveats.
>> That sounds like a bug in Google evangelism process. Or is it the case
>> that they have evangelized for
>> Chrome Web Apps (or whatever is the right term). Those are in a walled
>> garden, so not really part of the web.
>> -Olli
>>  Google people told me they're not willing to break compatibility with  
>> the
>>> content created under those assumptions.
>>> Rob
>>> --
>>> “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your
>>> enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who  
>>> persecute
>>> you,
>>> that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love  
>>> those
>>> who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
>>> doing
>>> that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more  
>>> than
>>> others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]

Använder Operas banbrytande e-postklient: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2012 05:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:04 UTC