See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 November 2013
Odd, I'm on the call.
<padenot> olivier: I won't be attending today
<padenot> (I'm still on vacations)
<olivier> ok, no prob
<cwilso> heheh. Zakim's obviously disconnected from the phone system.
<scribe> ScribeNick: chrislowis
olivier: let's get going.
<olivier> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/266
olivier: item 2 is covered by issue 266 on github, about tracking disconnect behaviours.
<olivier> close ACTION-82
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-82.
olivier: next is action 66 on chrislowis, to look into dezippering.
<olivier> close ACTION-66
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-66.
<olivier> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Contributing
chrislowis: I put together a little demo to show to people not as involved with the group what de-zippering is. Suggest we continue on the list.
olivier: I put together a new section on contributing to the group on the wiki, which closes the action item assigned to chrislowis.
<cwilso> Ray is now in the room with me.
<olivier> close ACTION-69
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-69.
<olivier> ACTION-70 due in 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-70 Look into migrating all webaudio issues from bugzilla to github due date to 2013-11-21.
olivier: I haven't closed all the bugzilla tickets, because that will spam everyone.
... I will try to grab someone in Shenzen next week to see if they can help.
<olivier> ACTION-78 due in 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-78 Make sure web platform docs has up to date doc on web audio due date to 2013-11-21.
olivier: I haven't heard from Doug about the next issue, so will try him again in a couple of weeks. (Action 78)
... I haven't heard anything back from the TAG about our review of their issues, so I'll try to find someone from the TAG at TPAC. I'd still like us to have a joint call with the TAG to go through the issues, but that is still pending.
<olivier> ACTION-81 due in 4 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-81 Contact tag, point them to tag issues in github, continue conversation there due date to 2013-12-05.
olivier: I'm going to skip agendum 2, as padenot is not here. So straight to the 3.
<olivier> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/254#issuecomment-26590612
olivier: there were a number of issues in the bucket of "visible data races". We got resolution around AudioBuffer. As padenot mentioned a couple of weeks ago there's still some other issues that have come up in our discussion of data races.
The comment above from padenot on github discusses the remaining issues.
olivier: so today, I want us to decide whether these issues are high priority or not, and if yes, what do the people on the call think about the issues.
cwilso: I do think we should be solving these now.
... we should get the issue out of the way.
... of the proposals that padenot made, the only one I think is contentious is the audio Processing one. I need to talk to rtoyg_ about that.
olivier: so of the 4 proposals that padenot made have at least 2 backers, including padenot. Anyone else have an opinion?
joe: I think they both make a lot of sense. I don't think there's a lot of utility in allowing those arrays to be mutable on an ongoing basis.
olivier: cwilso, as a result of this discussion, would you be able to document on github that there was consensus, minus the AudioProcessing event which is pending?
cwilso: sure.
... re the AudioProcessing event, padenot's proposal was that a new audiobuffer would be used for every call to the audioprocessing event.
joe: if we're tidying up script processor node, then resolutions there could make this issue moot
cwilso: I'm no sure I understand?
joe: it might, in that if we wind up making strong statements about inter-thread communication and script processor node, about how data is passed around. In that case their can't be modifications to the script outside the scope. I have an instinct about that, but I'm not sure how it will go.
olivier: what I'm understanding is that there might be in one of the potential solutions, an impact on this issue. Is it worth splitting the AudioProcessing issue out so that we can track it separately?
... cwilso, if you don't mind, could you split out the issue when you document it?
cwilso: ok.
rtoyg: all of the other waveform are zero at t=0, except for the triangle wave.
... which has value 1 at t=0
... I'm not sure why chris r did it this way, but there are different ways of defining it.
cwilso: there is some debate about where triangle should start (leading raising or leading falling).
olivier: no one will care about what we decide?
cwilso: I think if we declare that the answer is one of the standardly accepted. If we pick one of the logical answers we're fine.
... I think rtoyg is right, we should make it like the others. Start at zero and have a positive leading edge.
olivier: sounds good, if you can answer the issue in github, and create a pull request, that would be good.
rtoyg: ok, I'll do that.
<olivier> ACTION: rtoyg to document decision on triangle waveform starting at 0, positive slant [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/07-audio-irc]
<trackbot> Error finding 'rtoyg'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/users>.
<olivier> ACTION: rtoy to document decision on triangle waveform starting at 0, positive slant [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/07-audio-irc]
<trackbot> Error finding 'rtoy'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/users>.
<olivier> ACTION: ray to document decision on triangle waveform starting at 0, positive slant [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/07-audio-irc]
<trackbot> Error finding 'ray'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/users>.
<olivier> ACTION: Raymond Toy to document decision on triangle waveform starting at 0, positive slant [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/11/07-audio-irc]
<trackbot> Error finding 'Raymond'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/users>.
olivier: we could take up issue 2, but we don't have all of the editors.
... or we could adjurn.
... or aob?
cwilso: I wanted to raise that at this point we have jussi who has said that he like all the edits I made - so I think we could go to another public working draft.
... does the current moratorium due to TPAC end just after TPAC?
olivier: let me have a quick look.
... we have consensus for publishing a new draft.
RESOLUTION: publish a new draft of the Web MIDI specification
olivier: and I'll look into the timescales of the when we publish
... I think we should work together on messaging this new draft.
... I know that there are discussions on-going about support for this new draft. But is there someway that we can ask for support from other implementors as well as ask for comments.
cwilso: yes, I think we should announce that this draft is much closer to a finished spec, and that we should ask for feedback from others.
olivier: typically that's what we'd do at last call. Is there a reason why we wouldn't go to last call?
<olivier> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-midi-api/issues?state=open
cwilso: we still have a few open issues. There are two that I need to sit down and try to work through.
... we are working on our windows implementation right now, which should help resolve some issues.
olivier: so we are likely to want to go to last call in the next draft, pending feedback.
cwilso: yes, hopefully by the end of the year.
olivier: looks like 21/11 is the next time. Can people make it?
cwilso: I may not be able to, but I'd prefer to keep it in that week, and will try to make it.
olivier: that's all I have for today.
... AOB?
... hearing none, the call is adjurned. We'll meet in 2 weeks.
joe, cwilso, rtoyg, jernoble, chrislowis, olivier.
(i think)