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

Re: Draft Charter for Audio Working Group

From: <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:30:45 +0200
Message-ID: <4d57cef9.5925e30a.41c5.39f9@mx.google.com>
To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chris Rogers" <crogers@google.com>,"Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>,public-xg-audio@w3.org,"Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>,"Michael Cooper" <cooper@w3.org>
Good point.

Best regards,
Jussi Kalliokoski,
Web Developer,
Aldebaran

Sent from my HTC

----- Reply message -----
From: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
To: "Jussi Kalliokoski" <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chris Rogers" <crogers@google.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>, <public-xg-audio@w3.org>, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, "Michael Cooper" <cooper@w3.org>
Subject: Draft Charter for Audio Working Group
Date: Sun, Feb 13, 2011 2:09 pm


Note that I wasn't suggesting to remove processing and synthesis from
the document, so people certainly won't underestimate the value of the
technology. Also, if we replace "reading audio data" by "reading audio
samples" and "writing audio data" by "writing audio samples" and add
that to processing and synthesis, I think we get the best
understanding.
Cheers,
Silvia.


On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski
<jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure what the best approach at terminology here is but I'm
> worried that to audio developers "reading audio data" sounds like just being
> able to listen to files and "writing audio data" may sound like something to
> do with saving audio files, and these terms may make them underestimate they
> technology in question, which we most certainly don't want. This is half
> hunch - half experience, though.
> Best Regards,
> Jussi
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 Sunday, 13 February 2011 12:31:24 UTC

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