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: James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:56:36 +0200
Message-ID: <5086A214.9060007@netcologne.de>
To: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
CC: public-audio@w3.org, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Hi Jussi,

Thanks for the swift reply! Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and the 
answer makes me very happy! :-)


> Hi James,
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de 
> <mailto: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
> output.send(msg)
> 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. 
> Cheers,
> Jussi
>     All the best,
>     James
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:57:18 UTC

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