- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 12:14:20 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Justin Lebar <justin.lebar@gmail.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Apr 22, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi > <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: >> 2. Let pattern be list. > > Using let twice seems somewhat confusing as pattern is already > something. Set pattern to list makes more sense. However, maybe this > method should be variadic? I guess it might be too late to fix that? Yes, this should be "Set pattern to list" as per your suggestion. Re making the method variadic, are you thinking of a use case concerning N number of actuators or something else? I don't think we're too late if there's a good use case. >> 9. If pattern is 0, an empty list, or if the device does not >> provide a vibration mechanism (or it is disabled), then return >> true and terminate these steps. > > Pattern cannot be zero. Good catch. I'll remove "0" from that step. I'll send a separate mail with the revised algorithm for everyone to review. I'm hoping we can land this to the spec soon. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 12:15:07 UTC