- From: Christopher Lowis <Christopher.Lowis@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 17:33:13 +0000
- To: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
Hi, We had our routine teleconference this afternoon (London time). The minutes are at http://www.w3.org/2013/05/23-audio-minutes.html. Thank you to Giri for doing an excellent job of scribing and to Doug for wrangling IRC. We were joined by Marc Novakowski and Seth Levy from Pandora who expressed their interest in our group and offered to contribute some insights on the spec from an application developers perspective. Thanks to Marc and Seth for their time. A brief summary of our discussions: * offlineAudioContext We discussed the remaining issues Ehsan had with the offlineAudioContext part of the spec. Chris Rogers will mail the list about his proposal for calling startRendering multiple times on an offlineAudioContext. We decided that it would be ok to exclude "real time" nodes (such as the MediaStreamProcessingNode) from the offlineAudioContext to ease implementation. Ehsan plans to reply to Chris's email with proposed changes to the WebIDL which will give an idea about how this will work in practice. * Testing We discussed approaches to testing using offlineAudioContext and ScriptProcessorNode. Ehsan has made good progress with using a webkit test in gecko's test suite, and will share some proposed code for comparing buffers in the next few days. I ported a Webkit test to the w3c test harness; (https://github.com/WebAudio/web-platform-tests/blob/master/webaudio/the-audio-api/the-gainnode-interface/gain-node-webkit.html). Chris Rogers is keen to make as many of the existing tests as possible available to all through our test suite and I think this shows that porting them should be possible. We discussed how much coverage our test suite should have. Doug would like to see the broad bases covered to help us demonstrate interoperability and allow progression of the spec through the W3C process. Ehsan and Chris R are keen to have good coverage of edge cases. I think we agreed (chime in here if I'm wrong) that if the tests are useful to implementers they will also be contributed to and serve both purposes. We discussed administration of the test repo and how tests should be submitted. Chris Lowis raised this with the html testsuite mailing list and it looks like pull requests to that repo ("code reviewed" by us) will be the way to go. But for now we'll experiment in our own fork. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-testsuite/2013May/0003.html Any corrections to that, please let me know. Thank you to those who attended the call for your time and insights, as always, All the best, Chris ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2013 17:33:43 UTC