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

Re: Audio WG Teleconference, 22 August - Call for Agenda

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqWwUFTb1dN-nrme5QwHZuEyZnhADUYnenYUQqj97W3KPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
I would definitely like to have a discussion on the renaming issues (
noteOn/noteOff <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17344>,
AudioParam <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17334> methods
and AudioNode creation<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18332>methods
- for that matter,
<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17348>as well) on the

I'm very concerned about causing unnecessary pain in deployed
webkitAudioContext apps and the transition we would need to make,
particularly now that Apple has picked WebAudio up into iOS and Safari 6.
 I'd be happy to move to new names in an unprefixed audioContext, and alias
the new names in webkitAudioContext, but I got the strong impression from
another thread that unless we are disabling the current names in
webkitAudioContext in very short order, we're not doing due diligence, and
I can understand that belief.  As the person to whom it will fall to go
back and evangelize to developers who have already shipped applications
depending on the current names, of course, I have a distinct bias.

That doesn't mean we're completely against making changes; it just means
the bar for value returned needs to be high.  My current take, for example,
is that changing noteOn/noteOff to start/stop, while rational, would cause
a lot of problems in nascent adoption, for not a very large benefit. By
contrast, changing the JavascriptAudioNode name would be relatively
low-impact (since not too many deployed apps or even examples use it

On AudioParam method naming, and AudioNode methods, I think the situation
is a little more complex.  At any rate, I would like to suggest that we
poll the WG to see how strong the demand for these naming changes are, and
I'd like us to prioritize 1) batching all the name changes together, and 2)
getting them locked down as soon as possible.


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:05 AM, olivier Thereaux <
olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> Hello WG members,
> We are one week away from our next teleconference, and with the relatively
> long time passed since our last call, I was wondering if there were any
> request for agenda.
> Can you also get in touch with me if you think you may not be able to join
> the call on that day, or if you have a strong preference / inability to
> join at either of our usual time slots (see below)?
> Noon Boston:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2012&month=8&day=22&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=43&p3=136&p4=291&p5=195&p6=237&p7=22
> 3PM Boston:
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2012&month=8&day=22&hour=19&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=43&p3=136&p4=291&p5=195&p6=237&p7=22
> A few things I'm thinking could make it to the agenda:
> * Revisiting the circular graph (and sample rate limits) issue, which I
> believe got dropped from view in the past couple of months.
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17326
> * Quick discussion on renaming some of the interfaces in the web audio API
> (and MIDI API)
> * AudioContext introspection / Determining connection state of an AudioNode
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JulSep/thread.html#msg430
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18488
> * What's the right architecture for custom audio processing? JSAudioNode?
> WorkerNode? Something else entirely?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2012JulSep/0550.html(etc.)
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 19:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:11 UTC