Re: Proposed W3C Charter: Audio Working Group

[Paul Adenot]

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This is outdated it seems, I'll look into updating it.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

[Boris Zbarsky]

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

[Tantek Çelik]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:25 PM, L. David Baron  wrote:
> 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

[L. David Baron]

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

[Paul Adenot]

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