- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:30:40 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, 권기홍 Kwon <kihong.kwon@samsung.com>
On 05/09/2012 12:09 , Jonas Sicking wrote: > Since this isn't a new object, but rather just additional properties > on the window.navigator object, we should remove the interface > completely and just do: > > partial interface Navigator { > void vibrate (unsigned long time); > void vibrate (unsigned long[] pattern); > } > > That is effectively equivalent to having a "[NoInterfaceObject] > Vibration" interface. The only difference that I can think of is if we > start adding functions which takes arguments of type "Vibration", but > I hope we have no such plans. Given the current specification, I believe that Jonas is entirely right. That being said, part of the reason behind the original design was that one should be able to do: GamePad implements Vibration; or interface HapticDevice { readonly attribute Vibration[] vibrators; }; If we stick to that plan, I think that NoInterfaceObject is actually fine since it's meant to be a supplemental interface. But I guess that bridge might be crossed when we get there? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:35:42 UTC