W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: AudioBufferSourceNode.gain

From: Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:12:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CANTur_5NCSYR8DJJcWdLoc7ojKCxctiR-SWHAWFD2qMtfYCarQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Cc: David Evans <dave@playcanvas.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot David for the detailed information, and also for keeping up
>> with the spec changes!
>>
>> So Chris (Rogers), given the above, are you OK with removing
>> AudioBufferSourceNode.gain from the WebKit/Blink implementation?  (Note
>> that I have already implemented this in Gecko, but I would be more than
>> happy to remove it right away if you're OK with this.)  Otherwise, we
>> should probably re-add it to the spec, I guess. :(
>>
>
> For this one, I think we can remove it from Blink, and I can suggest the
> same for WebKit.  There might be a few other stragglers out there still
> using this, but it seems like it should be ok.
>
>>
Great news, thanks!  I filed <
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=880265> to remove it from
Gecko too.

Cheers,
--
Ehsan
<http://ehsanakhgari.org/>



>
>> --
>> Ehsan
>> <http://ehsanakhgari.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:52 AM, David Evans <dave@playcanvas.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We actually updated our engine back in April to support the latest spec
>>> so that it works in the latest Firefox builds. So we're no longer dependent
>>> on the gain attribute. We're happy for it to be removed and the spec kept
>>> clean and simple.
>>>
>>> We may have a couple of demos still running on old engine versions which
>>> use the gain node. In particular, I suspect this is one Chris is thinking
>>> of as it's linked from the Web Audio API samples page
>>> http://apps.playcanvas.com/dave/tutorials/3d_audio
>>>
>>> We've been meaning to update that to the latest engine and it's pretty
>>> trivial for us to do that, so it we're not worried about it breaking. The
>>> rest of our demos should already be up to date.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 15:13:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:18 UTC