- From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:57:25 +0200
- To: ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, ext Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-device-status@w3.org, "public-device-apis@w3.org WG" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, ext Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Hi Justin, Robin, On 16.11.2011, at 17.55, ext Justin Lebar wrote: >> Justin - Do you have a suggestion or a preference how we should handle the specific case of vibrate() overloading assuming we cannot (yet) rely on Web IDL handling the order of overloads: > > I am (fortunately!) not a webidl expert, but based on Cameron's post, > it doesn't sound like we have much of a choice. > > Since we define vibrate(unsigned long x) and vibrate(unsigned long > x[]), we'll throw if someone passes something that's not an unsigned > long or an unsigned long[], right? > > I think cancelling a vibration will be sufficiently rare that using > vibrate(0) or vibrate([]) is fine. Those two are also clearer than > vibrate() or vibrate(null). I updated the spec and dropped null. Now we should throw if other than unsigned long or unsigned long[] is passed. Robin - I updated both Overview.html and FPWD.html. -Anssi
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 07:58:29 UTC