W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-audio@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Draft Charter for Audio Working Group

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:40:19 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=uzEn+N6FX4bG0nGmpEexdbXzkjnysn=tjvRhF@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, public-xg-audio@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Silvia,
> I think it's pretty clear in the text that the idea is to get access to the
> audio stream:
>     "It will also add programmatic access to the PCM audio stream for
> low-level manipulation directly in script"
> And we can clarify that it includes access to the <audio> PCM stream.

Indeed, audio and <audio> aren't quite the same.


> Calling it "reading" and "writing" is just not the type of terminology I've
> seen very much in common use in academic articles or by musicians.  For
> example, when talking about audio plugins such as VST and Audio Units
> typically the words "processing" and "synthesis" are used.

Web terminology seems to me to be more relevant in this space. Also,
we shouldn't argue with academic purity here.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies


> That said, it's not really that big of a deal.

I didn't think so either, so let's make sure our language is more
inclusive than exclusive.


> I also included a couple of other changes which I hope people will consider
> concerning some applications for the API.  (I'm sorry, it looks like my
> edits didn't actually show up in red).

I was indeed looking for red bits, but couldn't find them. Could you
post a diff or something else so it's more readable?

Cheers,
Silvia.


> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Doug,
>> > I'm sorry for taking so long to reply, but I have a few comments about
>> > the
>> > draft you've created.  First of all, I want to thank you for the time
>> > and
>> > effort you've put into this so far.  I'm really excited to see this
>> > moving
>> > forward!  I think what you've written is really good, but I wanted to
>> > offer
>> > some suggestions on how I think the text could be improved.  I've
>> > included
>> > my proposed changes in red below.  Most of the changes are really just
>> > relating to terminology which I believe is in more common use.  For
>> > example:
>> > * using the words processing and synthesis instead of reading and
>> > writing
>>
>> Reading and writing audio data (or streams) has to do with getting
>> access to the data encapsulated in a <audio> element both for
>> extraction and for creation.
>> Processing is about taking such extracted data and changing it, and
>> synthesis is about creating such audio data.
>>
>> These are all very different goals for a charter and we need to be
>> aware of this. I don't think we should remove reading and writing. I
>> certainly want to see all four goals achieved as an outcome of this
>> working group.
>>
>> What I am certainly missing in this charter is the mention of the
>> existing <audio> element in HTML5 and that the work that this group
>> performs has to integrate with this element.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Silvia.
>>
>>
>> > * using PCM audio stream instead of raw audio data
>> > I hope you will consider my suggestions and look forward to seeing these
>> > audio features move towards standardization.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Audio Working Group Charter
>> >
>> > DRAFT: for review only.
>> >
>> > The mission of the Audio Working Group, part of the Rich Web Client
>> > Activity, is to define a client-side script API adding more advanced
>> > audio
>> > capabilities than are currently offered by <audio>.   The API will
>> > support
>> > the features required by advanced interactive applications including the
>> > ability to process and synthesize audio streams directly in script.
>> >
>> > The HTML5 specification introduces the <audio> and <video> media
>> > elements,
>> > including an API to play back prerecorded audio and video files and to
>> > get
>> > limited information about the media, such as duration. The Audio Working
>> > Group will build upon and expand that basic functionality.
>> >
>> > Scope
>> >
>> > The audio API will provide methods to create sounds, and perform
>> > client-side
>> > audio processing and synthesis with minimal latency.  It will also add
>> > programmatic access to the PCM audio stream for low-level manipulation
>> > directly in script. This API can be used for interactive applications,
>> > games, 3D environments, musical applications, educational applications,
>> > and
>> > for the purposes of accessibility.  It includes the ability to
>> > synchronize,
>> > visualize, or enhance sound information when used in conjunction with
>> > graphics APIs. Sound synthesis can be used to enhance user interfaces,
>> > or
>> > produce music. The addition of advanced audio capabilities to user
>> > agents
>> > will present new options to Web developers and designers, and has many
>> > accessibility opportunities and challenges that this working group will
>> > keep
>> > in mind.
>> >
>> > Two existing experimental audio APIs are currently being developed in
>> > different browsers. The Mozilla Firefox browser provides simple
>> > read-write
>> > access to the audio stream, relying on script to perform real-time audio
>> > algorithms; the WebKit implementation in Apple Safari and Google Chrome
>> > provides an additional higher-level graph-based API, which performs some
>> > common functions in the native browser implementation. This charter does
>> > not
>> > dictate which approach the Audio Working Group will follow.
>> >
>> > This working group is a result of deliberation by the W3C Audio
>> > Incubator
>> > Group which preceded it, and will address the use cases and requirements
>> > developed by that incubator group, which are currently under final
>> > development.
>> >
>> > The scope of this working group includes:
>> >
>> > Developing a client-side script API for processing and synthesizing PCM
>> > audio streams directly in script.
>> > Access to audio device inputs, such as for microphones or other audio
>> > inputs, and multi-channel speakers or other audio outputs
>> >
>> > This working group will take into account common work-flows for sound
>> > creators, including considerations for common audio formats. This group
>> > will
>> > also liaise with other groups for direct connection to audio inputs,
>> > such as
>> > microphones.
>> >
>> > This working group is expected to collaborate with other groups, such as
>> > the
>> > HTML Working Group, Device APIs and Policy Working Group, Web Real-Time
>> > Communications Working Group, or their successors, to define an API for
>> > accessing system devices such as microphones, speakers, and audio
>> > processors
>> > and channels. If work does not proceed elsewhere in a timely fashion,
>> > this
>> > group may define an API for audio device access.
>> >
>> > Success Criteria
>> >
>> > In order to advance beyond Candidate Recommendation, each specification
>> > is
>> > expected to have at least two independent implementations of each of
>> > feature
>> > defined in the specification.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi, folks-
>> >>
>> >> Here is my rough first pass at a charter for the proposed Audio WG.
>> >> Please
>> >> review it, let me know what I should add or take out or fix. This is
>> >> public,
>> >> so feel free to share it around.
>> >>
>> >>  http://www.w3.org/2010/12/audio-wg-charter.html
>> >>
>> >> I drew liberally from the Audio XG charter, and some of it may not be
>> >> as
>> >> appropriate for the Audio WG, but I thought much of it was still
>> >> relevant.
>> >>
>> >> I would really like this incubator group to help produce a report on
>> >> some
>> >> use cases and requirements, to help clarify our goals in designing an
>> >> audio
>> >> API, if possible.
>> >>
>> >> (Note that for this initial charter period, the proposed Audio WG would
>> >> deliver only an audio API, not any of the other things that might also
>> >> useful later, such as music markup.)
>> >>
>> >> Regards-
>> >> -Doug Schepers
>> >> W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 21:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:38:00 UTC