- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:19:26 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
- CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 15:56, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi > <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: >> Improved the "perform vibration" steps: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#dfn-perform-vibration >> >> Would "this context" work considering reusability in other contexts? > > "this context" doesn't really mean anything which is why I suggested > to just omit it. We don't really need to be super precise here I think > since this seems like an implementation detail (or something > implementations can compete on in terms of quality). No need for > interoperability. Dropped "this context". Had similar concerns. Anne - thanks for the great feedback, I assume we're done now? I'm hoping these changes helped improve the reusability of the feature in other parts of the platform. Frederick - I've kept the ED and the PR draft in sync. >>> (Should navigator.vibrate() be present in workers by the way?) >> >> The known implementations do not expose this to workers currently. That would require a bit more refactoring. Perhaps that'd be a v2 feature after some experimentation in code first. > > Fair. Michael noted this might be limited to dedicated workers. Michael, All - if you are prototyping vibrate() in workers, please let us know how it goes so we can consider it for a future release of the spec. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 15:20:26 UTC