W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [vibra] Adding [NoInterfaceObject] to the Vibration interface

From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:52:59 +0300
Cc: (wrong string) Œ기™ Kwon <kihong.kwon@samsung.com>
Message-Id: <D09D7763-B5FB-4575-8D10-E564C1944C35@nokia.com>
To: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi All,

On 6.9.2012, at 10.05, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Le mercredi 05 septembre 2012  23:56 -0700, Jonas Sicking a crit :
>>> One reason why having a declared (but invisible) Vibration interface
>>> might be useful is that there had been discussions about adding that
>>> interface on other interfaces, e.g. to handle vibration on gamepads.
>> 
>> Couldn't we make that change then if needed? My impression was that
>> gamepads were different enough that this might not be possible anyway.
>> I.e. they often have multiple vibrators, and almost always the ability
>> to set vibration strength.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me (I personally prefer the cleaner partial
> interfaces; just wanted to make sure we didn't forget one of the aspects
> of this discussion).

Thank you everyone for your comments! It looks like we've reached a consensus on this issue.

I've updated the Editor's Draft [1] again to use a partial interface as follows:

partial interface Navigator {
    void vibrate (unsigned long time);
    void vibrate (unsigned long[] pattern);
};

Marcos - I assume you're also fine with this change given your concern was related to [NoInterfaceObject]?

-Anssi

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:53:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:53:13 GMT