- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:56:03 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415 --- Comment #20 from Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> 2012-06-18 18:56:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > If so, then "larger buffer sizes" should be a hard requirement. On my fairly > powerful desktop computer a layout could block for at least 871 ms. The closest > power-of-two at 48Khz is 65536, i.e. over a second. With that amount of latency > it doesn't seems very useful. What? Why would it be a hard limit? Hard limits aren't very future-friendly. Should setTimeout have a minimum timeout limit of 871ms as well? Or requestAnimationFrame? Developers have to be conscious about performance and avoiding layout reflows anyway, why should this API be any different? -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 18:56:05 UTC