Re: Vibration API: making feature detection possible

Yes, thanks Michael for raising the issue and discussing on the list. If you can help with next steps that would be helpful.

I've moved ISSUE-155  to the 'postponed' category based on this thread, meaning we should consider in any

(Anssi's  ACTION-668 is also closed).


regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
Chair, W3C DAP Working Group

On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:00 AM, ext Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:

> On Oct 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Michael van Ouwerkerk <> wrote:
>> 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!
> Thanks for your quick response. Your feedback has been very helpful, and should we had you in the group earlier the design might have turned our differently with regard this API. I'm hoping we'll see you around in the future (in this and perhaps some other groups) so you can influence what will be coming next :-)
> Tracker, this closes the ACTION-155.
> -Anssi

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 18:06:09 UTC