Re: New draft WG charter

Hi, Olivier, Jussi, Chris-

On 6/1/12 7:18 AM, olivier Thereaux wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2012, at 01:26, Doug Schepers wrote:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/charter/2012/charter-proposed.html
>
> This latest revision looks good. May I suggest adding a very short
> sentence about MIDI to the intro/mission paragraph, too?
>
> Suggested rewrite: « The mission of the Audio Working Group, part of
> the Rich Web Client Activity, is to add advanced sound and music
> capabilities to the Open Web Platform.
>
> Building upon and expanding the basic functionalities brought by
> the <audio> and <video> media elements in HTML5, the Audio Working
> Group will define client-side script APIs which will support the
> features required by rich interactive applications including the
> ability to process and synthesize audio streams directly in script,
> as well as giving access to musical instruments through a bridge with
> existing system-level MIDI APIs. »

Great wording, thanks.  I've tweaked it just a tad:

[[
Building upon and expanding the basic functionalities brought by HTML5's 
<audio> and <video> media elements and MediaStream object,
...
]]

> I note that it names the MIDI spec "MIDI Device Communication API",
> which I like. Would like to hear thoughts from the group (and
> especially Chris and Jussi) on this naming.

I got that from some version of the spec, actually...

On 6/1/12 12:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Heh.  I was thinking that the word "device" was misleading in the
> API.  :)
>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure MIDI *Communication* API will be broad enough, as it is
>> possible that the spec will be extended in the future (maybe V2 or
>> so, but not in the near future, definitely not before CR) to support
>> creating virtual MIDI devices as well. However, I have no other
>> objections to the name. :)

... but now I've changed it to "MIDI Web API"... let's see if Chris and 
Jussi like that any better... :)

My rationale is that it's a Web API for MIDI (not an API for "Web MIDI", 
so "Web MIDI API" doesn't fit), and that saying it's broadly for the Web 
and MIDI is as broad as we could want for the future.

Thoughts? I'm not married to it...

Regards-
-Doug

Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 20:32:38 UTC