W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-audio@w3.org > December 2010

RE: Charter, Call for Co-Chairs

From: Penkler, David <dave.penkler@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:54:19 +0000
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-xg-audio@w3.org" <public-xg-audio@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1F81ECAC692E7E4C98732E4913081F6032859C1935@GVW1088EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hi Doug,

Doug Schepers wrote:
>If anyone has improved wording for the charter here, or can share the 
>rationale with me (onlist or offlist), that would help me in finalizing 
>the draft charter.

Here is a proposal for the text:

"The audio API is intended to operate on local and remote sources including synthesis, files and sound capture sources. API's for implementing interactive audio streaming directly between users is not in scope. This group will coordinate with the other groups working in this area, such as the proposed Web Real-Time Communications WG, to discuss the interactive streaming use case and its interaction with the Audio WG API's."


-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:35 PM
To: Penkler, David
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn; Philippe Le Hegaret; public-xg-audio@w3.org
Subject: Re: Audio WG Charter, Call for Co-Chairs

Hi, Dave-

Penkler, David wrote (on 12/14/10 10:36 AM):
>> From: Noah Mendelsohn
>>> noting that streaming is out of scope except for coordination
>>> with other groups
>> Could you clarify what is meant by this?
> No it refers only to bidirectional real-time audio streams carried
> over RTP/UDP or such connecting two or more users between them or to
> a network interactive voice response unit such as voicemail system.
> This is basically the soft phone in a browser use case. One of the
> specific issues arising out of this use case is the need to
> synchronise the input and output streams in order to perform echo
> cancellation economically. The use cases for listening to a remote
> live performance over the internet with an audio enabled web browser
> or DAW's are not excluded.

As I mentioned on the call, there are 3 main reasons for listing items 
as out of scope:

1) To set expectations and forestall off-topic conversations that 
prevent the group from making progress, when the item might otherwise be 
expected to be discussed;

2) To prevent overlap with work from other groups; and

3) To delimit issues that have potential IP concerns, to increase the 
possible participation by companies that may have reservations about 
joining otherwise.

Given Noah's concern about the implications of putting streaming out of 
scope, I would like to either define better what is meant by it (similar 
to your explanation here), or to remove the passage putting it out of 
scope.  Without knowing the rationale for putting it out of scope, I 
don't know which to do.

If anyone has improved wording for the charter here, or can share the 
rationale with me (onlist or offlist), that would help me in finalizing 
the draft charter.

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 17:55:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:59 UTC