Re: New draft WG charter

Heh.  Although I see what you mean, for consistency with the Web Audio API,
I would probably just suggest "Web MIDI API".

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> 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<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
>