- From: Chris Lowis <chris.lowis@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:05:57 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
On 08/02/2012 02:35, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Phil Burk <philburk@mobileer.com > <mailto:philburk@mobileer.com>> wrote: > > I would be happy to contribute 'C' or Java code to Web Audio API. > I'll study the code base and then we can talk offline. > > > Ultimately we're going to need more than one implementation of (whatever > the API is), probably one per browser engine. So it's not just a matter > of contributing code to "the Web Audio API". I agree with you up to a point. However the code in Webkit is under a permissive license so will be available for porting to other browser engines at a later date. The contribution of code by a particular individual to a particular engine is not the concern of the W3C working group in my opinion, and further more should not be discouraged. As Phil said, he'll work on this "offline" and I'm sure we can follow updates on his progress here or in the Webkit repo. I think the discussions here would benefit greatly from having more people look at and contribute to working code wherever it comes from and I'm really happy to see more of that going on. > I don't think having contributed C code in browsers for all the effects > people want is going to scale. I think it's important to have the best > possible support for JS-based audio generation and processing. That > probably means using Workers, as ProcessedMediaStream does: > http://people.mozilla.org/~roc/stream-demos/worker-generation.html I think the proof will be in the pudding here, as they say. We have some a use case in this thread (FM/"analogue" synthesis) and some noted problems (glitches, pops etc.). It'll be interesting to see how each of the implementations cope with this use case as they mature, as that will inform the standardisation effort. Cheers, Chris
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 10:09:11 UTC