- From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:53:44 +0000
- To: public-device-apis@w3.org
On 10/11/11 23:23, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Scott Graham<scottmg@google.com> wrote: >> Hi device-apis and webevents, >> >> I'm not sure what the correct protocol for this is, but it seems like >> the gamepad and vibration APIs ought to be coordinated. >> >> Specifically, the vibration API assumes only one connected vibrator >> and thus it's on "navigator" (which seems suitable for phones, etc.) >> >> My initial thought would be that the same Vibration Interface would >> also appear on Gamepad, so a connected gamepad would have >> .vibrate(time) and .vibrate([pattern]). > This seems reasonable. One could even have a device which can, > itself, vibrate (controlled via the navigator interface) and which can > have gamepads hooked up to it which can vibrate (controlled via the > gamepad interface). > > >> As the DAP is set up to handle things related to vibration, could the >> vibration spec simply add a reference to the Gamepad spec, and make >> the addition of having Gamepad implement Vibration? (as well as >> Navigator of course) > Yes, that sort of reference is acceptable. > > ~TJ It might be better for the gamepad spec to make a normative reference to the vibration spec, e.g. the gamepad interface could be defined to implement the vibration interface, see: http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#idl-implements-statements The vibration spec looks as if it will move quite quickly along the W3C REC track, so making such a normative reference shouldn't pose a problem, see: http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html#dependencies-met -- Dave Raggett<dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 09:54:17 UTC