W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Vibration

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:14 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <177E04A1-CCB2-43F6-913E-4FC00017C3AA@intel.com>
Hi Anne, Frederick,

> On 19 Nov 2014, at 14:13, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi
> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Good suggestion, added:
>>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#idl-def-VibratePattern
> You can remove "The first method argument is referred to as vibration
> pattern." now.


> Also, the "perform vibration" steps still refer to a browsing context
> (not available from workers) and the "processing vibration patterns"
> algorithm (not present in e.g. the notification context). I think it
> would be okay to make this vaguer and just say that if the "perform
> vibration" steps are already running they can be canceled.

Improved the "perform vibration" steps:


Would "this context" work considering reusability in other contexts?

> (Should navigator.vibrate() be present in workers by the way?)

The known implementations do not expose this to workers currently. That would require a bit more refactoring. Perhaps that'd be a v2 feature after some experimentation in code first.

Frederick - PR.html and PR-diff.html kept in sync.


Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 13:48:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:14 UTC