W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [vibration] Preliminary thoughts on the vibrator spec

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:57:25 +0200
Cc: public-device-status@w3.org, "public-device-apis@w3.org WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, ext Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Message-Id: <3FAF8288-232B-48FD-95A9-A780AE85BF98@nokia.com>
To: ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Hi Justin, Robin,

On 16.11.2011, at 17.55, ext Justin Lebar wrote:

>> Justin - Do you have a suggestion or a preference how we should handle the specific case of vibrate() overloading assuming we cannot (yet) rely on Web IDL handling the order of overloads:
> 
> I am (fortunately!) not a webidl expert, but based on Cameron's post,
> it doesn't sound like we have much of a choice.
> 
> Since we define vibrate(unsigned long x) and vibrate(unsigned long
> x[]), we'll throw if someone passes something that's not an unsigned
> long or an unsigned long[], right?
> 
> I think cancelling a vibration will be sufficiently rare that using
> vibrate(0) or vibrate([]) is fine.  Those two are also clearer than
> vibrate() or vibrate(null).

I updated the spec and dropped null. Now we should throw if other than unsigned long or unsigned long[] is passed.

Robin - I updated both Overview.html and FPWD.html.

-Anssi
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 07:58:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:24 GMT