IRC log of audio on 2017-01-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:51:51 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #audio
16:51:51 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/01/19-audio-irc
16:51:53 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
16:58:53 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #audio
16:58:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 28346
16:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
16:58:53 [trackbot]
Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference
16:58:53 [trackbot]
Date: 19 January 2017
16:58:53 [mdjp]
Agenda+ 1. Discussion of issues that are being proposed to move to v.next
16:58:53 [mdjp]
Agenda+ #1089 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1089
16:58:53 [mdjp]
Agenda+ 3. Review any outstanding V1 WG Review issues
16:58:53 [mdjp]
agenda?
16:59:06 [rtoyg_m]
present rtoyg_m
16:59:29 [mdjp]
present+ mdjp
17:00:21 [rtoyg_m]
present+ rtoyg_m
17:01:41 [padenot]
padenot has joined #audio
17:03:54 [joe]
joe has joined #audio
17:03:57 [joe]
present+ joe
17:04:05 [padenot_]
padenot_ has joined #audio
17:05:58 [joe]
scribenick: joe
17:06:24 [mdjp]
zakim, take up agendum 1
17:06:24 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "1. Discussion of issues that are being proposed to move to v.next" taken up [from mdjp]
17:07:20 [joe]
mdjp: joe and I talked earlier today to talk about how to enable us to get to CR. The general feeling was to get to a place where we've identified the issues are either true blockers or are resolvable within a short fixed timeframe
17:08:04 [joe]
mdjp: the key thing as we go thru isssues is to identify either as V1 blocker or as resolvable in this short window
17:08:16 [joe]
mdjp: I have 4 issues. The first isss.
17:08:18 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/13
17:09:41 [joe]
padenot: question is, can we make a good NoiseGate based on the new Dynamics Compressor design
17:10:26 [joe]
padenot: for example, the compressor algorithm might behave as a noisegate purely based on parameter values without the need for a separate node
17:10:59 [joe]
mdjp: is that the case that we have a compressor node that can be documented as behaving like a noise gate under certain conditions?
17:11:10 [joe]
padenot: yes. and it's possible that it would work without doing too much
17:12:05 [joe]
padenot: this is something that we can get determined fairly quickly
17:12:34 [joe]
padenot: if we modify Firefox to honor ratios < 0 we might find out fairly quickly whether this is possible
17:12:46 [joe]
mdjp: can we do this before the next call?
17:13:08 [joe]
padenot: to determine whether doable?
17:13:26 [joe]
padenot: feeling in the audio group at Firefox right now isthat the compressor is a bit too complex
17:13:44 [joe]
padenot: we could have agreed on this if hongchan were here
17:13:57 [joe]
mdjp: then by the next call we can establish whether this is doable?
17:14:04 [joe]
padenot: yes
17:14:20 [joe]
padenot: if it doesn't go in, then AudioWorklet provides a fallback
17:14:59 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/833
17:15:57 [joe]
padenot: Bikeshed is a more recent version of ReSpec. But it uses a different IDL dialect. So we'd need to convert to a different way of doing things
17:16:03 [joe]
padenot: quite boring and long to do
17:16:36 [joe]
padenot: apparently there was some movement to move towards Bikeshed, but we're not blocked necessarily.
17:16:43 [joe]
mdjp: does this have to be done for V1?
17:16:56 [joe]
padenot: not really, no. we should do it when things have stabilized more
17:20:18 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1079
17:26:44 [joe]
joe: we're planning to loop this back to hongchan so we can review. padenot is concerned that we need more specificity here
17:26:44 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1098
17:29:50 [joe]
padenot: for now, we will defer this
17:30:10 [mdjp]
zakim, take up agendum 2
17:30:10 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "#1089 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1089" taken up [from mdjp]
17:31:02 [joe]
padenot: we're waiting for a response on the proposal I made
17:31:24 [joe]
mdjp: I agree that going with the SMPTE ordering makes the most sense
17:32:47 [mdjp]
zakim, take up agendum 3
17:32:47 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "3. Review any outstanding V1 WG Review issues" taken up [from mdjp]
17:33:10 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+milestone%3A%22Web+Audio+V1%22+label%3A%22Needs+WG+review%22
17:34:01 [ghaudiobot]
[web-audio-api] joeberkovitz pushed 1 new commit to 1050-mono-4chan-diagram: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/commit/e0ad4e3f48bf6d2887d42bfe29bba3268a676561
17:34:01 [ghaudiobot]
web-audio-api/1050-mono-4chan-diagram e0ad4e3 joeberkovitz: fix image size and reference in spec
17:34:46 [joe]
padenot: we can remove the review label from 1116, 1120
17:35:08 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1117
17:37:00 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1105
17:38:45 [joe]
#rtoy: disallowing zero as a ref distance has a problem with incompatibility with OpenAL
17:38:54 [joe]
rtoy: disallowing zero as a ref distance has a problem with incompatibility with OpenAL
17:39:17 [joe]
mdjp: depends on how wide the problem is
17:39:35 [joe]
rtoy: since there's a bug and a Slack mention of this, apparently it's a thing
17:40:02 [joe]
mdjp: if we don't revert the change, then how many people are unhappy?
17:41:48 [joe]
joe: can we revert to zero to make this go away?
17:42:19 [joe]
joe: and spec a floor value for the other models?
17:43:34 [joe]
rtoy: let's propose that and see what he sayd
17:43:39 [joe]
s/sayd/says
17:44:07 [joe]
mdjp: rtoy, can you handle that conversation?
17:44:09 [joe]
rtoy: yes
17:44:20 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/1099
17:46:48 [joe]
mdjp: do we want to refer this back to cwilso to get clarification?
17:47:01 [joe]
rtoy: I'll ping cwilso and if there's no answer then we can close this
17:47:32 [mdjp]
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/95
17:48:51 [joe]
padenot: I'll review this quickly now that I'm back
17:49:58 [joe]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:49:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/01/19-audio-minutes.html joe