- From: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:07:31 +0000
- To: Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
Dear all, The minutes of the W3C Audio WG teleconference on 06th February 2014 are now online: http://www.w3.org/2014/02/06-audio-minutes.html The call was sparsely attended but the four of us made progress on a number of issues. The topics discussed were: * Dezippering We looked in detail at the concerns and objection voiced against the earlier consensus to use dezippering for audioparam’s .value setters. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013OctDec/0335.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013OctDec/0339.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013OctDec/0340.html We felt that Karl’s objections did highlight the cost of de-zippering - something which can be alleviated by better explaining the behaviour of the .value setter and getter (we even had to double-check that .value returned the intrinsic value, not computed). There was a clear agreement that regardless of which solution is preferred, documentation should be clear and reasonably detailed. We are still faced with two imperfect solutions - both do the right thing in some cases, do something slightly wrong or unexpected in other cases, but nothing that can’t be fixed by a developer understanding what is happening. Making the decision on the ground that we “want to make it easy for naive developers to do the right thing” or “we want to push developers to make mistakes fast and fix them” is almost philosophical, and I suspect we will get nowhere if we argue on that plane. I still believe that the consensus which we had reached in December, arguing that de-zippering is already present in implementations and that the path of least resistance is to document the behaviour rather than remove dezippering from implementations (which may break some existing code) still stands, even with the clearer understanding of the drawbacks of the solutions. In other words, I believe Karl’s objections have been listened to, considered, but do not constitute sufficient ground to reverse the earlier decision. * Cross-origin media requests Paul summarised earlier discussion and proposal to mute web audio for media coming from cross-origin (and not accepted). ChrisW expressed concern, but agreed it was reasonable. I will send a separate CfC to accept the proposal summarised at: https://github.com/webaudio/web-audio-api/issues/282 * Next meeting 20th February 2014, same time as usual. -- Olivier ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 10:08:00 UTC