W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2014

Re: [Vibration] Proposed update and next steps

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:19:31 +0000
To: "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <574AD7B2-810B-480C-8A58-5499B9AEA892@intel.com>
On 05 Jun 2014, at 17:10, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:

> We’ve had some discussion on the list regarding the Vibration API and alignment of implementations.
> 
> The only item of concern at this point appears to be step #5 [1]:
> 
> “5. If the length of pattern is even and is not zero, then remove the last entry in pattern."
> 
> Anssi provided an example to highlight the issue, as well as a pointer to chromium code [2]
> 
> To reiterate, if the pattern is even, then the last item is a pause, which should have no effect since there is no vibrate time following. In addition, as Mounir points out, a subsequent API invocation will cancel the previous one so the pause should have no effect. it is generally agreed that this step is not testable.
> 
> Thus I propose the following change:
> 
> [[
> 
> Remove step 5.
> 
> In its place add a Note “Note: if the length of the pattern is even and not zero then the last entry in the pattern will have no effect so an implementation can remove it from the pattern.”
> 
> ]]

Added.

> I suggest we stay away from RFC normative language for step 5 (e.g. MAY) given the testability concern.
> 
> Given we are changing normative language, I suggest we have another Last Call (currently Vibration is in LC), and publish this along with the other LC specifications (after a CfC)

Sounds ok.

> Am I missing any other implementation alignment concerns?

I think we should be good to go, both Mozilla and Chromium folks seem to have reviewed and +1’d this change.

> Please comment on list, otherwise can the editors go ahead and update the editors draft so we can see this in place (along with an update to the status section)?

I went ahead and prepared a LC so it’s easier to review:

http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/

Pub date and LC end in sync with the other LC publications.

Thanks,

-Anssi
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 13:20:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:03 UTC