Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Request review of Keyboard Lock (#192)

So we did a breakout during our F2F, and the design looks fine. (Aside from the issues raised above)

However we do have some remarks on the naming of the spec - we believe that 1) either keyboard can be a global object (e.g. navigator.keyboard) and there is a `lock()/unlock()` within that for extensibility, or 2) for logical naming consistency potentially `keyboardLock()/keyboardUnlock()` and remove the request part. This is mostly for the purpose of being consistent with other stable platform features like the screen orientation lock mentioned above.

(It would also be nice if the pointer lock spec could have a newer promise based method too following this convention, but that's out of scope for this review)

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/192#issuecomment-332559417