See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 December 2013
olivier: happy to scribe if that helps.
<padenot> network issue, one second
<scribe> ScribeNick: chrislowis
olivier: start with action items
<olivier> ACTION-78
<trackbot> ACTION-78 -- Doug Schepers to Make sure web platform docs has up to date doc on web audio -- due 2013-11-21 -- OPEN
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/track/actions/78
olivier: Action-78 was on shepazu
shepazu: we have a section on Web Audio, but I don't think it's up-to-date. Not sure where to go from there,
olivier: how can we help you up
date it?
... do you need someone to look through it?
... or is there something in particular you need help with?
shepazu: the former.
olivier: someone to review it.
<olivier> close action-78
<trackbot> Closed action-78.
<shepazu> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/webaudio
olivier: would someone be
interested in reviewing the doc?
... any volunteer, or shall I ask on audio-dev?
mdjp: I'd be happy to take a look.
<olivier> ACTION: MDJP to review http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/webaudio, suggest updates [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Review http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/webaudio, suggest updates [on Matthew Paradis - due 2013-12-12].
olivier: Action-84 was on chrislowis and has been done.
<olivier> close ACTION-84
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-84.
<olivier> close ACTION-85
<trackbot> Closed ACTION-85.
<olivier> ACTION-86 due in 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-86 Document the case of mediaelementaudiosource and mediastreamaudiosource nodes in offlineaudiocontext on github due date to 2013-12-19.
<olivier> ACTION-80 due in 2 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-80 Remove webaudio section on example applications, photos from section on convolution, and salvage anything valuable due date to 2013-12-19.
olivier: what's the status with ACTION-80?
cwilso: just move it back a couple of weeks, and I can get round to it.
olivier: I haven't made much progress with ACTION-81. I contacted the TAG (alex) but forgot to prod them when at TPAC. I will follow up and suggest a joint meeting.
<olivier> ACTION-81 due in 4 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-81 Contact tag, point them to tag issues in github, continue conversation there due date to 2014-01-02.
olivier: on ACTION-83 we could start a post on audio-dev mailing list asking for contibutions to best practice guides.
<olivier> close action-83
<trackbot> Closed action-83.
olivier: if we were to put this on web platform docs we would need shepazu's help. So I'll close action-83 for now, and put an action on mdjp to start the discussion on the list.
<olivier> ACTION: mdjp to start discussion on audio-dev list about known best practices (and tutorials), make sure to include stuff linked in chrislowis' newsletter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Start discussion on audio-dev list about known best practices (and tutorials), make sure to include stuff linked in chrislowis' newsletter [on Matthew Paradis - due 2013-12-12].
olivier: Let's start with 3 and
4, and see how much time we have left.
... let me summarise:
... there were several discussions about oscillators. We agreed
that "mathematical" oscillators were not as useful for audio,
but that we did want to have them for other purposes (LFO
etc).
... and there was a discussion about the phase of
oscillators.
... that's where we were until recently. Then cwilso, you
looked at the draft and saw something?
cwilso: yes, one of the issues
concerned the phase, the triangle wave in the blink/webkit
implementation starts in a weird place compared to the others.
The other issue was whether the oscillators should be defined,
and produce a mathematical wave shape. We also noticed that
some of the oscillators were not going between -1 and 1
... rtoyg opened a PR, but before we can address that issue
(with phase) we need to address the other issues.
... no one objected to adding the ability to have an option or
ability to generating mathematical waveforms. We didn't reach a
conclusion about how we'd switch between them, or whether to
remove the ability to generate the aliased versions.
<olivier> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/127#issuecomment-24507931
olivier: it is true that we don't
have a suggestion for how to request the mathematically correct
oscillator.
... do you have a link to the PR?
<olivier> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/pull/270
<rtoyg_> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/pull/270
<olivier> ?
olivier: the PR rtoyg submitted
is an addition to the oscillator text.
... I think we're saying that we need to have a way to request
mathematical oscillators first, then PR270 makes sense.
... could I ask rtoyg to issue a PR to add an interface to
request mathematical oscillators, and then explain the
phasing.
... and to extend that for the "regular" case.
cwilso: I think we need to extend the spec to show how PeriodicWave is used to generate the oscillators.
padenot: actually we use some
kind of band-limited impulse train internally to generate the
oscillators in FF.
... we should be able to compete on implementation right?
cwilso: we should look at what
the actual differences are - I'm not saying we really need to
specify the implementation. It may not be about competing on
implementation, but rather on computational efficiency.
... but we will need to specify what happens to changes and
values and amplitudes etc.
padenot: I've thought about how to define that, but no clear plans as such yet.
olivier: so, we should specify
what is observable, and not how it's done? (although I'm not
sure the TAG would agree with that...).
... I don't think we're going to clear this all up here. But it
looks like padenot, cwilso or rtoyg could look at the spec,
suggest an interface for how to select the generation mechanism
for oscillators, and to clarify the spec. Volunteers?
padenot: that's ok with me.
<olivier> ACTION: padenot to look at current implementations, and draft interface to request mathematical oscillator (issues/127) and specify phase (base on PR 270) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Look at current implementations, and draft interface to request mathematical oscillator (issues/127) and specify phase (base on pr 270) [on Paul Adenot - due 2013-12-12].
olivier: the issue with this one,
as I understand it, is that the spec says that stop() can only
be called once. Which is fine in most cases, but in the issue
above, it explains a problem with issuing 'stop' after you've
already scheduled a 'stop' - e.g. to change the time when
something should be stopped.
... this sounds like a reasonable use case. 1) do you agree,
and 2) if so, when and how do we fix this?
cwilso: I think the spec follows what the current implementation is. If we're going to change it we should do that in v1
olivier: let me push back a little. At the moment, you can only call stop once, which is a problem in some cases. But adding the ability to call it twice wouldn't be backwards incompatible?
cwilso: that's partly true, but if the developer has implemented something to work around this, then a change may invalidate that code.
olivier: do we have any consensus
that this is a valid and common use case?
... not hearing a lot of support for that, but could someone
take a look at it, and see what it would take to make a change
to the spec, and what problems it would cause?
cwilso: I can take this one, I think
olivier: that's great. It's not urgent, but it would be good to talk about it again, maybe not on the next call though.
<olivier> ACTION: cwilso to look into https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/15 - assess how complex the change would be (and ideally suggest PR to spec) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Look into https://github.com/webaudio/web-audio-api/issues/15 - assess how complex the change would be (and ideally suggest pr to spec) [on Chris Wilson - due 2013-12-12].
<olivier> ACTION-90 due in 5 weeks
<trackbot> Set ACTION-90 Look into https://github.com/webaudio/web-audio-api/issues/15 - assess how complex the change would be (and ideally suggest pr to spec) due date to 2014-01-09.
olivier: I'd like to suggest that
having more clarity and sorting/triage of the issues would be a
good thing.
... maybe we could organise a distributed session to hack away
at the remaining issues once we've triaged.
+1
cwilso: it sounds like a good
idea. I haven't had as much time as I'd liked to work through
the issues, but padenot has been doing a good job.
... but I should have more opportunity to do that.
olivier: is it good to split the issue list up, assign them in groups for other people to tag them up? Or should I leave it to you cwilso and padenot?
cwilso: I'm happy to have other people weigh in, triage and state severity etc.
olivier: I need to figure out how
to do that, given that we're all busy and approaching a busy
time of the year.
... I'll think about it and suggest something on the mailing
list.
olivier: it's the time of the
year when I start thinking about f2f meetings.
... our last one was in March, and we didn't meet in
TPAC.
... I think it is a good time to think about organising one in
February/March next year.
... if anyone wants to host a f2f, then please get in
touch.
... our recent discussion mentioned the east coast of the US,
but I'm not sure if there's other events we could merge
together.
shepazu: there is a plan for a joint webapp/hmtl/webapp security/native apps meeting in the bay area sometime in march - it might be that some people who are attending that would be the kind of people who would be good to attend our f2f.
olivier: do you know that date?
shepazu: no, tentative at this stage.
olivier: we also discussed having our f2f sometime around GDC too.
shepazu: yes, that would also
make sense.
... if other people have suggestions they would probably
override that.
olivier: we'll talk about it some more.
<shepazu> "This specification defines a JavaScript interface that provides the current time in sub-millisecond resolution and such that it is not subject to system clock skew or adjustments."
olivier: do you want to talk about this shepazu ?
shepazu: /reads the summary
above/
... it occured to me that this group might be interested in
these specifications to see if there's any impact or
opportunities.
olivier: I'm confused by the
status code - is this a first and last working draft?
... could someone review the spec and get back to the group
with a summary of how/if it could impact us?
cwilso: I paid a fair impact to
High Resolution Time before.
... there's no changes to the DOM high-res timestamp, or
anything like that, I think.
... it has some bearing on web workers though.
olivier: could you double-check that that is the case?
cwilso: sure.
<olivier> ACTION: cwilso to do a quick review of HRT L2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html#action05]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Do a quick review of hrt l2 [on Chris Wilson - due 2013-12-12].
olivier: AOB?
... next meetings, then.
... we discussed on the last call that the next meeting would
be on the 19th.
... is that ok? And when should we have the next call after
that?
... the choices seem to be the 9th or the 16th ?
<cwilso> I'm happy with the 2nd, the 9th or the 16th.
olivier: I'm not available on the 9th. Or the 16th?
16th better for me, I'm not back on the 9th.
olivier: so 19th December 2013
and 16th January 2014
... adjourned.
<olivier> Scribe: Chris Lowis
:(
<olivier> they should be public Chris
Oh yes.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138 of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/no/do/ Found ScribeNick: chrislowis Found Scribe: Chris Lowis WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Doug_Schepers IPcaller ScribeNick aaaa audio chrislowis colinbdclark cwilso gmandyam heath https inserted joined kawai mdjp olivier padenot paul___irish rtoyg rtoyg_ shepazu toyoshim trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-audio/2013OctDec/0313.html Found Date: 05 Dec 2013 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-audio-minutes.html People with action items: cwilso mdjp padenot WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]