W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Resolution to republish MSP as a note

From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:16:29 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJhzemUMTDaxM2Ess0vJONx8pb+VN8dknSQ=9fpAvBzA+Z9aVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Wei, James" <james.wei@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Stéphane Letz <letz@grame.fr>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Wei, James <james.wei@intel.com> wrote:

>  “****
> Hence I'd rather we try to get RT thread support for workers so that one
> can just decide whether to use a real-time thread or not by choosing the
> type of worker to use.****
> “****
> ** **
> I think we cannot depend on a feature that not ready or even not mentioned
> for Web Worker. Web Worker is sure not perfect and many people complain and
> want to improve it. but at this time, we need to live with the current spec
> and implementation. ****
> ** **
> If in future, this feature not implemented for workers, what should we do?

React accordingly? We can't just go doing our own thing separately of all
the other entities involved because we're too impatient to wait for the
other entities response. Why are we trying to define a standard anyway if
we don't give a crap about what the other entities think?

Currently the native nodes are not much more than premature optimization.
If that feature will not be implemented in the workers it probably means
that it's not allowed in other parts of web either, so using it in native
nodes is a no-go too. I think we seriously need better communication with
the other groups, this is probably something we should've asked the other
groups before even starting on the Web Audio API... If it turns out that
high-priority thread workers are a no-go but it's OK for native nodes, we
can add them later, no damage done.

Anyway, I'm starting to feel like I'm fighting the windmills here. If I'm
the only one who thinks this idea is good, it's probably not very
constructive use of our time to argue about it.

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 07:17:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:01 UTC