- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:22:36 +0100
- To: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Cc: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, 권기홍 Kwon <kihong.kwon@samsung.com>
On Thursday, 6 September 2012 at 08:52, Anssi Kostiainen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On 6.9.2012, at 10.05, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 05 septembre 2012 à 23:56 -0700, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
> > > > 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]?
Absolutely! makes good sense. Let me know if you need me to review the tests or anything.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 11:23:08 UTC