- 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