Re: Vibration API: making feature detection possible

It seems one can argue over whether the user agent or the website is in a
better position, and more likely, to provide a good fallback to vibration.
My preference would be to give the website author more control, but so far
I couldn't convince enough people.

Whether Firefox should have shipped unprefixed so quickly is another matter
that can be discussed at some length, I don't know the answer.

So whether to support feature detection, and use promises, there seem to be
arguments on both sides. I favor the path of shipping sooner, without
making my suggested change.

Thanks for looking into this!

Regards,

Michael


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi <
anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> On Oct 17, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <
> anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > This feature has been shipping in Firefox since v16 (Oct 2012)
> unprefixed [1], and in terms of API behaves the same with and without
> supporting hardware. Knowing this, I'd be hesitant to change the current
> specification in incompatible ways.
> >
> > That said, I think future device-related APIs may want to consider
> employing a design proposed by Michael. ES6 Modules may provide another
> future alternative.
>
> Please let us know if you have any concerns with this, otherwise the group
> will close the ISSUE-155 [1].
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Anssi
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/155
>
>