Re: [Buzzkill] Cleaning Up Web Audio API Spec

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Olivier Thereaux <
olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Umm, did I miss a resolution?  The Oscillator definitions are now
> mathematical.
>
> The resolution to add mathematical oscillators was taken at the meeting on
> 2013-09-19:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013JulSep/1912.html
>
>
> >  I'm not comfortable with that.
>
> I donít think the resolution was to make all oscillators mathematical, but
> to add an option to use mathematical ones. Can you clarify your objection?
>

My objection is (unless I'm thoroughly misreading the PR) that this appears
to define all Oscillator behavior as mathematical, in an attempt to define
the starting phase.  At the 2013-09-19 meeting we agreed to add a separate
issue for adding mathematical oscillator behavior - though we did not
resolve that issue as "approved" or anything, but separated that from the
phase issue.  At the 2013-11-07 meeting, we resolved the phase issue (by
assigning an issue to Raymond), but I don't think we talked about the
mathematical issue.

I'm not opposed to adding mathematical Oscillator behavior; I expect we're
going to have a disagreement about the default behavior, but we can get to
that.  I think we need to define the phase for mathematical and
bandwidth-limited oscillators separately; the definition for BWL
oscillators is probably input into the periodic wave algorithm, no?

>  Unfortunately, the minutes of that tc were the ones that were lost.
>
> Iím pretty sure all the minutes are listed at
> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Meetings
>
> The last 2 meetings were missing from the list (but had been sent to the
> mailing-list), I just added them to the wiki.
>

Duh.  Sorry, was misled by your comment in the wrapup notes "the minutes
are not online," and did not read the second half of that sentence "...but
are attached to this message."

-Chris

Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 19:18:03 UTC