- From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 08:47:25 -0700
- To: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>
- Cc: "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJK2wqU6F78uDG5VSVwR_yP+aeUJDAVf+x9Zz9R6vkbJcM982w@mail.gmail.com>
I think it's likely to cause a bit more trouble, so would prefer the latter option, but can live with the former. On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > 2013-09-16 00:44, Robert O'Callahan skrev: > > The two options are basically "when AudioBufferSourceNode.buffer is set" > and "when AudioBufferSourceNode.start() is called". Do we have consensus it > should be the latter? That's what my proposal says, but I've lost track of > the discussion. > > > As I've said before, I think the former (buffer assignment) would make the > interface slightly more explicit (which IMO is a good thing). On the other > hand I can't really tell how much damage it would do in terms of breaking > existing content. > > So, I can live with the latter option (on start()), but would prefer the > former option. > > /Marcus > > > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * > > > > -- > Marcus Geelnard > Technical Lead, Mobile Infrastructure > Opera Software > >
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 15:47:56 UTC