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

Re: New draft WG charter

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:19:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4FC8A546.8060705@w3.org>
To: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>

Le 01/06/2012 13:06, olivier Thereaux a écrit :
> On 1 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Thierry MICHEL wrote:
>>>>> * The expected milestones for the web audio API should be, per our
>>>>> latest discussions:
>>>>> FPWD: Dec 2011
>>>>> LC: Q4 2012
>>>>> CR: Q2 2013
>>>>> PR: Q4 2013
>>>>> REC: Q4 2013
>>>> The expected milestones for the MIDI Device Communication API should
>>>> also be extended.
>>> I don't think so... Olivier, please correct me if those are wrong, too.
>> These MIDI milestones may have been discussed during my leave, and I have missed it (not yet catch up on all my emails). Do you have a pointer to that ?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0412.html
> http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-audio-minutes.html#item02
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012AprJun/0437.html
>> I am only highlighting that the MIDI spec is planed to publish its first Public draft Q3 2012 (9 months after the PFWD of Web Audio API Dec 2011) and it is planned to reach CR Q2 2013 (at the same time as the MIDI spec).
>> This seem very optimistic, under these considerations:
>> - The Web Audio API spec was elaborated a long time before it became a FPWD in the Audio WG, during the incubator Group. There are already implementations.
>> - Currently the MIDI spec is only a initial draft. The implementation experience is low.
>> I certainly will not oppose to these milestones, just checking that they are credible.
> These milestones are guesswork based on their relative complexity, and an exercise in finding balance between our commitment to quality/interoperability and suitable time to market.
> I haven't seen any comment from the group since the last batch of numbers were proposed (and Doug's draft does have the right numbers) but if you wish to suggest another timeline and make a case for it, please do.

OK fine. I was not aware that these numbers were discussed.
As I previously said, I will not oppose to these milestones if you think 
these are achievable.

Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 11:20:09 UTC

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