16:42:19 RRSAgent has joined #audio 16:42:19 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-audio-irc 16:42:21 RRSAgent, make logs world 16:42:21 Zakim has joined #audio 16:42:23 Zakim, this will be 28346 16:42:23 ok, trackbot; I see RWC_Audio()12:00PM scheduled to start in 18 minutes 16:42:24 Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference 16:42:24 Date: 08 January 2015 16:42:37 Chair: mdjp 16:42:49 rrsagent, pointer? 16:42:49 See http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-audio-irc#T16-42-49 16:43:03 agenda? 16:43:48 Agenda+ Proposal for separate multiple-I/O AudioWorker API and single-I/O AudioWorker API (action from previous meeting) 16:44:01 Agenda+ Audio Worker "bypass" Attribute #456 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue) 16:44:18 Agenda+ Inter-app audio (Consistent request from ISVs, a la VSTs, Audio Units, Rack Effects) #358 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue) 16:44:28 Agenda+ AOB 16:44:33 agenda? 16:55:37 rtoyg_m has joined #audio 16:57:50 jdsmith has joined #audio 16:57:54 RWC_Audio()12:00PM has now started 16:58:02 +jdsmith 16:58:14 + +1.650.253.aaaa 16:58:33 Zakim: aaaa is me 16:58:52 +??P3 16:59:07 Zakim P3 is me 16:59:14 Zakim, P3 is me 16:59:14 sorry, mdjp, I do not recognize a party named 'P3' 16:59:20 Zakim, ??P3 is me 16:59:20 +mdjp; got it 16:59:32 hongchan has joined #audio 16:59:38 Zakim aaaa is me 17:00:01 Zakim, aaaa is me 17:00:01 +rtoyg_m; got it 17:00:19 Zakim, rtoyg_m has hongchan 17:00:19 +hongchan; got it 17:00:58 zakim, who is here? 17:01:01 On the phone I see rtoyg_m, jdsmith, mdjp 17:01:01 rtoyg_m has hongchan 17:01:03 On IRC I see hongchan, jdsmith, rtoyg_m, Zakim, RRSAgent, colinbdclark, shepazu, bwalker, rtoyg, paul___irish, slightlyoff, mdjp, padenot, Domenic, cwilso, trackbot 17:01:36 agenda? 17:01:43 joe has joined #audio 17:02:28 Zakim, rtoyg_m has cwilso 17:02:28 +cwilso; got it 17:02:38 + +1.617.455.aabb 17:02:52 zakim, aabb is joe 17:02:52 +joe; got it 17:03:45 zakim, who is here? 17:03:46 On the phone I see rtoyg_m, jdsmith, mdjp, joe 17:03:46 rtoyg_m has cwilso 17:03:46 On IRC I see joe, hongchan, jdsmith, rtoyg_m, Zakim, RRSAgent, colinbdclark, shepazu, bwalker, rtoyg, paul___irish, slightlyoff, mdjp, padenot, Domenic, cwilso, trackbot 17:03:50 zakim, pick a victim 17:03:51 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose cwilso 17:04:13 scribenick: cwilso 17:04:34 zakim, take up agendum 17:04:34 I don't understand 'take up agendum', cwilso 17:04:40 zakim, agendum 1 17:04:40 I don't understand 'agendum 1', cwilso 17:05:11 zakim, take up agendum 1 17:05:11 agendum 1. "Proposal for separate multiple-I/O AudioWorker API and single-I/O AudioWorker API (action from previous meeting)" taken up [from mdjp] 17:05:36 ChrisL has joined #audio 17:06:00 mdjp: cwilso, has this been done? 17:06:19 cwilso: the former (multi-io) has been proposed, the latter (factory model) has not. 17:06:32 +ChrisL 17:06:51 http://cwilso.github.io/web-audio-api/ 17:07:33 http://cwilso.github.io/web-audio-api/#widl-AudioContext-createAudioWorker-AudioWorkerNode-DOMString-scriptURL-Array-inputs-Array-outputs 17:10:19 +[IPcaller] 17:10:30 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:10:30 +padenot; got it 17:11:12 cwilso: talks through the proposal's createAudioWorker 17:11:48 http://cwilso.github.io/web-audio-api/#h3_the-audioworker 17:12:18 +Doug_Schepers 17:13:10 http://cwilso.github.io/web-audio-api/#idl-def-AudioProcessEvent 17:14:07 bitcrusher example: 17:14:11 var inputBuffer = e.inputs[0][channel]; 17:14:11 var outputBuffer = e.outputs[0][channel]; 17:15:15 cwilso: it's unfortunate that the 99% case gets harder due to the 1% scenario 17:18:28 joe: points out that input channels shouldn't be dynamically changeable 17:21:40 mdjp: we should post to the list asking for more review of this and put it on the next agenda 17:22:06 joe: I think the current proposal seems fine (and we probably shouldn't multiply the number of ways to do similar things) 17:23:45 agenda+ github issues on mailing list 17:24:41 zakim, take up agendum 2 17:24:41 agendum 2. "Audio Worker "bypass" Attribute #456 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue)" taken up [from mdjp] 17:24:59 mdjp: should we put factory model on for next time? 17:25:06 cwilso: sure, although I may not have it done. :) 17:25:09 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/456 17:26:55 cwilso: I think we should punt for v1 17:27:02 paul: +1 17:27:05 joe: +1 17:28:02 zakim, take up agendum 3 17:28:05 mdjp: I can't really get anything you're saying from here 17:28:18 zakim, agenda? 17:28:18 I see 5 items remaining on the agenda: 17:28:18 zakim, take up agendum 3 17:28:20 1. Proposal for separate multiple-I/O AudioWorker API and single-I/O AudioWorker API (action from previous meeting) [from mdjp] 17:28:20 2. Audio Worker "bypass" Attribute #456 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue) [from mdjp] 17:28:20 3. Inter-app audio (Consistent request from ISVs, a la VSTs, Audio Units, Rack Effects) #358 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue) [from mdjp] 17:28:20 4. AOB [from mdjp] 17:28:21 5. github issues on mailing list [from shepazu] 17:28:23 agendum 3. "Inter-app audio (Consistent request from ISVs, a la VSTs, Audio Units, Rack Effects) #358 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue)" taken up [from mdjp] 17:28:45 mdjp: can't understand you. try muting while you speak 17:29:04 never mind 17:29:07 stupid idea 17:30:08 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/358 17:30:22 -mdjp 17:31:14 +??P3 17:31:28 Zakim, ??P3 is me 17:31:28 +mdjp; got it 17:35:38 -ChrisL 17:36:37 +ChrisL 17:37:04 cwilso: I think we should keep this moving along. 17:37:12 jerry: is this still a v1 topic? 17:38:23 q+ 17:38:45 ack joe 17:40:02 cwilso: I think "v1" is just a name. I think we need to examine the underlying architecture of audio, and how bits move around in the system. I think interapp audio is in the same bucket as access to different inputs/outputs and direct stream access 17:40:24 I agree, interap audio is important and hard and could be deferred from v1 17:40:30 joe: to me interapp audio comes later than defining the processing system. IAA shouldn't gate the viability of this api. 17:41:19 joe: we could just get rid of numeric milestones, although I'm not necessarily recommending that 17:42:00 mdjp: I agree with that; this doesn't really fit into the v1/vnext taxonomy; we need some action to resolve it either way, though. 17:42:20 q+ 17:42:27 ack shepazu 17:42:49 q+ 17:43:10 ack cwilso 17:43:13 shepazu: even if this isn't in the first Rec spec, we still want to make sure we have the architectural pieces to accomodate it later 17:44:30 q+ 17:44:34 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/445 17:45:10 ack joe 17:45:20 cwilso: I think this is kind of blocked behind the input and output stream magic 17:45:54 joe: do you mean we need to abstract sources/destinations outside of the WA api? 17:48:26 cwilso: yes: we need to crack open how source/destinations work. 17:48:42 our use cases are not their use cases, basically 17:49:09 joe: we seem to get hung up in the RTC realm on the enumerations. Can we make progress on the abstractions anyway? 17:49:14 q+ 17:49:17 q+ 17:49:21 ack shepazu 17:49:23 q+ 17:50:31 shepazu: the goal of the platform is to be well-integrated, which is why we encourage cross-WG coordination. We *can* put forward ideas in the RTC space. 17:51:11 shepazu: we should come up with what we want to see from the RTC group and talk through it with them. 17:51:37 ack cwilso 17:55:38 ack ChrisL 17:57:05 cwilso: we need bare metal APIs for audio API. I think it's this group's responsibility to make sure those are happening. Some bits are being defined in RTC - which is fine, and they're doing a reasonable job - but driving that "audio streaming" api is not their milieu, today. 17:57:33 chrisl: pinning down requirements here is likely critical. 17:57:58 q+ 17:58:06 ack shepazu 17:58:16 cwilso: the audio wg likely has two levels we need to work on: the current processing API, and bare metal access to audio i/o and device enumeration. 17:58:32 shepazu: chairs should schedule time for us to talk about use cases / scenarios. 17:59:07 cwilso: we have use cases - we should probably look at them again. 17:59:18 joe: yeah, I wrote a lot of them - I should probably take a look again. 17:59:46 agenda? 18:00:53 zakim, close agendum 1 18:00:53 agendum 1, Proposal for separate multiple-I/O AudioWorker API and single-I/O AudioWorker API (action from previous meeting), closed 18:00:55 I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is 18:00:55 2. Audio Worker "bypass" Attribute #456 (In the "needs WG Decision" queue) [from mdjp] 18:01:23 shepazu: I'll get on getting github issues reflected to the mailing list. 18:01:24 -jdsmith 18:01:25 -ChrisL 18:01:27 -joe 18:01:27 -Doug_Schepers 18:01:28 -rtoyg_m 18:01:36 rrsagent, make minutes 18:01:36 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-audio-minutes.html mdjp 18:01:37 -padenot 18:01:38 hongchan has left #audio 18:01:44 trackbot, end meeting 18:01:44 Zakim, list attendees 18:01:44 As of this point the attendees have been jdsmith, +1.650.253.aaaa, mdjp, hongchan, cwilso, +1.617.455.aabb, joe, ChrisL, padenot, Doug_Schepers 18:01:52 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:01:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/08-audio-minutes.html trackbot 18:01:53 RRSAgent, bye 18:01:53 I see no action items