Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:10 PM Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 1/16/20 11:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > > Would it be appropriate to state that we don't intend to implement > > the Audio Device Client API in Gecko because we don't see a need > > for this additional/parallel audio API? > > Does anyone other than Google want the Audio Device Client API? > The current status is that there were people that wanted it, but recently stated they'd rather use a regular AudioContext, because changing the buffer size [0] and changing the audio output device [1] are now considered, as new features of the AudioContext. > > * Something that might arguably be harder to implement in Web > >Audio than to implement in a new smaller API is the configurable > >`callbackBufferSize`. > > The explainer for the new thing claims that the WG considered adding > this and rejected it, right? Should we push harder for them to consider > it more seriously? > This is outdated it seems, I'll look into updating it. The current position of the WG is to support changing the buffer size [0]. It's not particularly easy, but it's necessary to have good performances for a very large portion of users (more or less people using Windows that don't have the most recent drivers, and all Android users, those two platforms commonly have a native audio buffer size that is not a multiple of 128, the github issues explains the problem). Additionally, the reason it's not easy to implement is because the `AudioContext` supports features that are easier to implement with non-power-of-two buffer sizes (anything that requires computing Fast Fourier Transforms), but those features are also very commonly used and useful. Authors that need to use those features and use an Audio Device Client will face the same problem implementers are going to face, so this is not a strong argument in favor of not doing variable buffer size on the AudioContext. As such, neither the AudioWG nor the Audio CG has found a reason why Audio Device Client would perform better or have more features than an AudioContext with the two additions [0] [1] mentioned. Paul. [0]: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api-v2/issues/13 [1]: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api-v2/issues/10#issuecomment-531648915 > > -Boris > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group
On 1/16/20 11:21 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: Would it be appropriate to state that we don't intend to implement the Audio Device Client API in Gecko because we don't see a need for this additional/parallel audio API? Does anyone other than Google want the Audio Device Client API? * Something that might arguably be harder to implement in Web Audio than to implement in a new smaller API is the configurable `callbackBufferSize`. The explainer for the new thing claims that the WG considered adding this and rejected it, right? Should we push harder for them to consider it more seriously? -Boris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:25 PM, L. David Baronwrote: > On Friday 2016-10-21 15:01 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> Support revised charter, with requested changes: >> * Hyperlink the phrase "Community Group" in the charter to the >> specific Community Group they mean, and perhaps title the hyperlink >> more specifically as well. >> * List the Community Group explicitly in the coordination section >> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/charter/audio-2016.html#coordination and >> describe the relationship between the WG and the CG. > > So the only community group mention I can see in the charter is to > say that work that is out of scope for the working group could > instead occur in a community group (which I think means a > hypothetical community group). If that's the case, I don't think > the second comment makes sense since the intent is that the material > be out of scope for the working group. It could be clearer that the > community group is hypothetical, though. > > I'm inclined to submit the comment as: >> One basically-editorial suggestion: >> >> Either: >> >> * Hyperlink the phrase "Community Group" in the charter to the >> specific Community Group intended, and perhaps title the hyperlink >> more specifically as well. >> >> * Or, if no such community group exists, make it clearer that it's >> a hypothetical community group. > > (and record it as a support-with-optional-changes). Yes, support with optional-changes, and how you've worded it works for me. Thanks, Tantek ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group
On Friday 2016-10-21 15:01 -0700, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Support revised charter, with requested changes: > * Hyperlink the phrase "Community Group" in the charter to the > specific Community Group they mean, and perhaps title the hyperlink > more specifically as well. > * List the Community Group explicitly in the coordination section > http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/charter/audio-2016.html#coordination and > describe the relationship between the WG and the CG. So the only community group mention I can see in the charter is to say that work that is out of scope for the working group could instead occur in a community group (which I think means a hypothetical community group). If that's the case, I don't think the second comment makes sense since the intent is that the material be out of scope for the working group. It could be clearer that the community group is hypothetical, though. I'm inclined to submit the comment as: > One basically-editorial suggestion: > > Either: > > * Hyperlink the phrase "Community Group" in the charter to the > specific Community Group intended, and perhaps title the hyperlink > more specifically as well. > > * Or, if no such community group exists, make it clearer that it's > a hypothetical community group. (and record it as a support-with-optional-changes). -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group
We should support this new charter. We've been commenting, specifying and implementing both specs of this Working Group (Although we've not shipped Web MIDI at the moment), and we're participating very actively in the development of those standards (V1.0 and V2.0 for Web Audio API, lighter involvement with Web MIDI). Thanks, Paul. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform