- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:40:08 +0200
- To: Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>
Hello Audio,
http://www.w3.org/2015/07/09-audio-minutes.html
and below as text for stupid bots
Audio Working Group Teleconference
09 Jul 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/07/09-audio-irc
Attendees
Present
mdjp, hongchan, joe, ChrisL, cwilso, SteveBeckerMSFT,
BillHofmann, Daniel, padenot
Regrets
Chair
Matt
Scribe
chrisl
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]uncommitted issue review
2. [5]issue 560
3. [6]test suite update and discussion (Noteflight intern
Daniel Shaar will join)
4. [7]spreadsheet on test suite
5. [8]media capture API progress update
6. [9]review of issues marked as "Needing Review" that
require attention to progress
7. [10]any other business
8. [11]next meeting
* [12]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 09 July 2015
uncommitted issue review
<mdjp> [13]https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/560
[13] https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/560
<scribe> scribenick: chrisl
<scribe> Meeting: WebAudio call
issue 560
<padenot> java !?
joe: why does this interact with any of those attributes?
matt: You are quite right
joe: we can close this
<BillHofmann> (Sorry guys, BART delays)
matt: so its the playbak duration as it changes when you change
playback rate?
joe: think commentor is confused on playback rate. happy to
explain it to them
test suite update and discussion (Noteflight intern Daniel Shaar will
join)
matt: ok, you do that. leave uncommitted for now
spreadsheet on test suite
joe: I emailed the speadsheet tha daniel compiled. it tells a
good story
daniel: cmpilation of each attr and method, and says what is
being used in the tests. also all the enums and additional
informative sections on computation
... does not include interactions between parts
joe: we decided not to take a fine garined, testable assertion
approach. just looking over the obvious broadly categories of
attrs, methods and events
... not a guarantee of complete assertion coverage
daniel: also noticed tha among the tests, audio worker has zero
test coverage. its completely empty
ChrisL: (audio worker was a later addition, hence no tests and
ppoor implementation)
matt: and the spec needs tightened up somewhat, too.
cwilso: yes, that is waiting for me
padenot: talked at Moz summit, and have some time to work on it
now. lots of getting rid of worker and building a lighrter
thing
... could work on this soon
cwilso: great, pressed for time with new quarter. please go
ahead and then ping me
padenot: was going to ask if it was ok to put a draft up and
get feedback
cwilso: sat with alex russel and andrez(?) about how to better
implement. had some ideas. no way to load/parse/compile js out
of thread, in our engine or across engines
padenot: that should be ok. gecko does it already though :)
cwilso: happy for you to take a stab at it
joe: ok lets assign paul to that issue
padenot: great
shepazu: note that excel spreadsheets are poor to exchange
info. maybe a google doc or wiki page
joe: it was exported from a google doc actually
matt: happy with either
shepazu: better to have a persisting link to a live doc
matt: where do we need to be, to estimate how much work
remains?
joe: need process for adding additional test. and don't know
how implementors will use it, w3c does not have a driver
daniel; we have a driver but it does not worjk for the chrome
and mox tests
joe: at least everything is in one place
matt: how would you usethis for testing, paul and hongchan?
hongchan: you mean using the w3c driver?
... generally good idea to have a unifying framework, not sure
how to integrate that into our chromium test framework though
matt: need to coordinate new test discovery
joe: need to hand it off, daniel is not working on this
indefinitely
... for rec track process it demonstrates the spec is tested
and testable, and others can run the tests
... also wquestions of how to discover the tests
shepazu: discussion on pointer events wg, about the same thing.
ensuring that there is a usable ... so put in touch with those
folks
daniel: they used intem (? sp ?) which runs all tests on all
browsers. one issue is that to re-adapt tests to that format
they need a flat out rewrite using node
matt; sounds like a good next step
scribe: any actions around this?
joe: fornow, not planning for daniel to do more until we have a
settled direction. higher priority things right now. testing in
better shape that I thought
matt: thanks daniel for this, goof to see
daniel: the pointer events guys used that. w3c uses test
runner, and will try to see if i can get some chromium and moz
tests to run in w3c test runner
media capture API progress update
matt: great, please let us know
joe; we have a coule of OPR on media capture spec, seem to be
going ok
scribe: audio output api dangling as the chairs don't really
want to do more on audio,m trying to get to last call
ChrisL: waiting to see what chairs say back to my proposal
joe: will then make a more involved PR
ChrisL: (explains how css wg pushes things to a new level to
avoid impacting last call dates)
joe: implementation commitment would be helpful to convince
media capture we need this
padenot: no specific timeline but definite implementor interest
<hongchan> sorry muted here locally.
padenot: can post a traceable commitment
... seem to recall this is corret, need to check back and
re-read
matt: sounds like call for implementor support is dealt with,
joe: will crwate a new PR for audio output and share with the
group. this is not for now though
matt: how long?
joe: august
review of issues marked as "Needing Review" that require attention to
progress
matt: some issues still marked as needing WG review for v.1
<mdjp>
[14]https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues?q=is%3Aope
n+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Web+Audio+V1%22+label%3A%22Needs+WG
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Web+Audio+V1%22+label%3A%22Needs+WG+review%22
+review%22
matt: four issues
... three for cwilso - any discussion needed?
cwilso: looking at them real quick
... audio worker paul is on that,532
... promises not discussed with tag. noise gate is waiting for
WG review, proposal made in november
... if its ok, I can do a PR
matt; everyone review the noise gate issue on the list, and
raise any objections soonish, by next meeting, else assumed
carried
matt: any other issues needing input to move them forward?
(no-one raises any)
any other business
matt: ok, spend the next 30 minutes doing your issues!!!
next meeting
matt: 23 july
(general agreement)
my regrets for that meeting, travelling
matt; f2f at TPAC monday as originally planned
ChrisL: aim for 50:50 split
joe: we want 51%
shepazu: on web payments, new group. for web annotations, will
be there mostly but available if needed. chris will handle most
audio stuff at tpac
adjourned
oh, zakim, you obsolete heap of crap
<shepazu> s/for web annotations, will be there mostly but
available if needed./I need to be there for web annotations on
Mon/Tues, but will be available for Audio available if needed./
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
--
Best regards,
Chris Lilley
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 16:40:14 UTC