Re: Core + Levels/Modules ? (Was: Aiding early implementations of the web audio API)

It's an interesting question.  Do you mean "core" like CSS1 Core/full
(which was a disastrous waste of time), or core like CSS 2.1?

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Olivier Thereaux <
olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/05/2012 00:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
>  One question - "exposing the behaviour of built-in AudioNodes in a
>> manner that authors of JavaScriptAudioNodes can harness" sounds like
>> subclassing those nodes to me, which isn't the same thing as providing
>> only lower-level libraries (like FFT) and asking developers to do the
>> hook-up in JS nodes.  What's the desire here?  I think Robert and Jussi
>> are suggesting not to have the native nodes; Colin seems to be saying
>> "just make sure you can utilize the underlying bits in JSNode".  Is that
>> appropriate?
>>
>
>
> Should we perhaps use the same model as CSS and split the web audio
> features as "Core" (AudioContext, AudioNode, AudioParam and the
> JavaScriptAudioNode Interface) and a number of levels or modules defining
> the higher level features?
>
> This could at least help us in framing the debate: I'd like to see a list
> of "importance" and "implementation complexity" levels rather than the
> binary all-or-nothing we tend to fall back to.
>
> And if it is architecturally sound, we could actually split the spec along
> those lines and make it easier and faster to produce standards and
> implementations.
> --
> Olivier
>
>