Re: Minutes of Audio WG meeting, 2012-02-06

Gabriel,

that kind of sounds like you're suggesting that you want an API that is
more oriented around editing Standard MIDI Files, and then having
<audio>-like media playback control?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Gabriel Cardoso <gcardoso.w@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A +1 for a wiki page describing the differences between the two APIs. As a
> (newbie) audio app developer, I have trouble diving into the MediaStream
> Processing specs. I also agree that having short examples implemented in
> each APIs would be a good solution.
>
> Just giving my opinion here about MIDI in the Music Production Tool use
> case, I think that being able to create MIDI tracks, upload MIDI files,
> editing them with a piano roll and playing them with a VST-like instrument
> are sufficient features. No need to access the MIDI devices in my point of
> view.
>
> Thanks for the summary.
>
> Bye,
>
> Gabriel
>
> 2012/2/7 Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The minutes of the Audio Working Group's teleconference held on 6th
>> February 2012 are online:
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/02/06-**audio-minutes<http://www.w3.org/2012/02/06-audio-minutes>
>>
>>
>> The group is getting large and we may be changing our teleconference
>> time. Please give your preference for your typical week in the online poll:
>> http://www.doodle.com/**i4pecambe7a5az64<http://www.doodle.com/i4pecambe7a5az64>
>>
>>
>> Meeting Summary:
>>
>> * We welcomed a few new participants, including Phil Burk.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-audio/**2012JanMar/0158.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JanMar/0158.html>
>>
>> * A follow-up on the mailing-list discussion about getUserMedia. Phil and
>> ROC will be participating in the TF (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
>> Public/public-media-capture/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-capture/>)
>> and act as liaison with our group.
>>
>> * One of the next steps in our work on Use Cases and Requirements is to
>> prioritize them. It was suggested that the group gives each UC a certain
>> priority level, which would then affect which requirements are needed in
>> the first version of our spec(s). Since the UC&R document has changed a lot
>> during and since the f2f meeting, the whole group is strongly encouraged to
>> review it. http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/**wiki/Use_Cases_and_**
>> Requirements<http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements>
>>
>> * There is a need to better understand the differences between the Web
>> Audio API and Media Streams API - expressed both by people interested in
>> our work, and by many in our group. A wiki document has been started, all
>> (esp the two spec editors) encouraged to contribute to it, focusing
>> especially on how the two proposals approach our use cases differently.
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/**wiki/Spec_Differences<http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Spec_Differences>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> --
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>