- 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