- From: Anssi Kostiainen <anssi.kostiainen@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:52:59 +0300
- To: "public-device-apis@w3.org public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- Cc: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, ext Justin Lebar <jlebar@mozilla.com>, ??? Kwon <kihong.kwon@samsung.com>
Hi All,
On 6.9.2012, at 10.05, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le mercredi 05 septembre 2012 à 23:56 -0700, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
>>> One reason why having a declared (but invisible) Vibration interface
>>> might be useful is that there had been discussions about adding that
>>> interface on other interfaces, e.g. to handle vibration on gamepads.
>>
>> Couldn't we make that change then if needed? My impression was that
>> gamepads were different enough that this might not be possible anyway.
>> I.e. they often have multiple vibrators, and almost always the ability
>> to set vibration strength.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me (I personally prefer the cleaner partial
> interfaces; just wanted to make sure we didn't forget one of the aspects
> of this discussion).
Thank you everyone for your comments! It looks like we've reached a consensus on this issue.
I've updated the Editor's Draft [1] again to use a partial interface as follows:
partial interface Navigator {
void vibrate (unsigned long time);
void vibrate (unsigned long[] pattern);
};
Marcos - I assume you're also fine with this change given your concern was related to [NoInterfaceObject]?
-Anssi
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 07:53:13 UTC