- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:15:05 -0700
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANr5HFXnMs8_-VKk8aVETnPOYbAPgXLL_hv9-ks8TFVS40sR8g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > This is lovely. Go TAG!! > > Here are some small editorial critiques I think would make the feedback > more effective: > > - It might be helpful to show code written "after the fixes." E.g., show > code that uses the proposed `PannerNode` constructor directly, in addition > to showing the desugaring of `createPannerNode` in terms of it. Done. > Or code that uses the promise version of `decodeAudioData` directly, > instead of the callback version desugared in terms of an internal promise > version. For that last one, a compelling example might be doing multiple > decodings at once with `Promise.every`, Done. > similar to the HTML5 spec's recently-added example for `createImageBitmap`. > > - The layering section starts strong by talking about the connection > between `<audio>` and web audio. But the bullet-pointed questions start > talking about a bunch of stuff related to multiple contexts and hardware, > and the connection there is hard to follow. Worse, it's not clear that > these questions are answered by the following proposed redesign. Basically > this section lost me---which might just be me not knowing the source > material well enough, but might indicate it needs a bit more editorial and > cohesiveness work. > Have moved some of the questions out. > - The "Other Considerations" section could also benefit from some "after" > code; right now it contains the awkward "before" code, but doesn't quite > show what the world would look like with the API fixed. > > Finally, one potential additional spec improvement: > > - It seems like there are many other opportunities for using promises to > replace one-off events. For example, OfflineAudioContext and, I believe, > the onended events. I admit I might not completely understanding how these > work though, so promises might not apply there. > Done.
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 22:16:03 UTC