Re: [Buzzkill] Cleaning Up Web Audio API Spec

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> 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 don’t 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.
>

Yes, you are right.  The waveforms to define the phase are expressed
mathematically. I did that to make it clear what the waveform is, so that
people could derive the same set of Fourier coefficients without any
guessing on what the wave form really was.

This needs to be clarified in some way.

Ray



>
> 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.
>>
>> I’m 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
>
>