W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: CfC - publication of Web MIDI API as First Public WD (Was: MIDI spec updates, as per telecon)

From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:30:03 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJhzemWFMZuAjFn6LR+L+RRaxooxp5mO4B7RGb=h6LVMhJ5Z4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>
Cc: public-audio@w3.org, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Hi James,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>wrote:

> Hi Chris, all,
> Congratulations on the First Public Working Draft of the Web MIDI API.
> Looks good to me, but I have a question:
> Does adding an extra ECMAScript attribute to a MIDIMessage cause any
> problems for the underlying system? I've tried to find the answer to this
> question in the referenced documents, but without success.

If I understand you correctly, you mean like:

var msg = {data: new Uint8Array([...])}
msg.customStuff = "stuff"
// Do something with the msg, and eventually send it

In that case, no. The parsing of a WebIDL `dictionary` (MIDIMessage is
specified as one) works by extracting only the meaningful data (as in the
specified properties) out of the JS (or other) object it's given. If you
someday hit an implementation of the Web MIDI API where there are adverse
effects for this, you probably have to file a bug against that
implementation. ;)

> In my current, working (Jazz plug-in) application [1], some MIDIMessages
> are given an extra attribute, without producing any adverse effects, but
> I'd like to be sure that this is okay in the Web MIDI API as well.


> All the best,
> James
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:14 UTC