On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote: > If nobody steps up to spec down the details of the shared memory model, > one solution could be that the vote option becomes just that (start > specifying the model), for instance (similar to an earlier proposal I've > made): > > "Keep the current API, using a shared data model. Specify the exact > behavior of the shared data model in the Web Audio specification to > guarantee client interoperability, and work together with other parties to > work out what other specifications need to be updated/written, etc." > > This would be very unfortunate, though, since it's a very high risk option > (we can't know for sure that it will even succeed, and if not we'd be back > to square one), and it's definitely much less clear what that option means > compared to the other two options, both in terms of the actual work that > has to be done, and how long it would take to finish it. > I don't think it's fair to have a vote-off between two well-specified options and one vague option. If no-one cares enough to specify it properly, it shouldn't be on the ballot. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Friday, 9 August 2013 08:49:54 UTC