- From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:55:02 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- Cc: public-audio@w3.org
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 19:55:30 UTC
Hi Marcos!
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm a bit confused… why does the API require a timestamp relative to some
> time (i.e., performance.now())? For example:
>
This is to maintain symmetry with incoming messages, which have relative
timestamps, e.g.
// proxy
input.onmessage = function (e) {
output.send(e.data, e.timestamp)
}
Cheers,
Jussi
>
> output.send(data, performance.now() + time);
>
> It seems to me that it would be better to just let the second argument be
> a delay (as a high resolution timestamp):
>
> //wait a few millis
> output.send(data, millis);
>
>
> The problem is that timestamps in the past always resolve to 0 (i.e., play
> now!), so seems kinda pointless to rely on a timestamp. What am I missing?
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 19:55:30 UTC