- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 04:18:11 +0100
- To: "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>, "Frederick Hirsch" <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Cc: "Philip Rogers" <pdr@chromium.org>, "Nick Doty" <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:13:52 +0100, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 3:17 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi >> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote: >> >>> On 26 Jan 2016, at 02:47, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >>> I've filed this as a bug against Chromium. If you'd like to follow >>> along, star https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=579628. >> >> Thanks -- you got one more star from me :-) >> >>> It may make sense to explicitly call this usecase out in the spec. The >>> ambiguous language makes this difficult to rely on. >> >> Good idea. >> >> Frederick - I guess we should add this informative clarification to the >> errata? > > We can definitely decide on an the text for an update, have a group CfC > to confirm consensus on it, update the errata document accordingly. > >> However, there lies a practical issue that not everyone looks at errata. > > Everyone *should* look at the errata, linked from the first page of > every W3C rec. Yes they *should*. But as Anssi says, they *don't*. (They also eat unhealthy food, drive too fast, and don't give me all their money when I ask for it…) >> Could we also update the Editor's Draft to match, perhaps rename it to >> "Level 2" or such? > > We can update the editors draft but it has no standing, i.e. 'draft'. > > Given that the changes are an editorial clarification, best would be an > expedited publication update for the Rec - I'm not aware of such a > thing, maybe there now is, need to check. There is - and has been for a long time for non-substantive changes. Proposed Edited Recommendation - https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-rec (Roughly, if there are no technical changes then you can request a new Proposed Recommendation if the Working Group has consensus to do so). cheers >>> Taking off my browser dev hat and putting on my web developer hat... >>> On my site, given the current language of the spec, I have no option >>> but to detect desktop browsers and show a warning for them. This >>> doesn't work for devices like the Nexus 7 without vibration hardware, >>> but it covers the common case since most mobile devices have vibration >>> hardware. >> >> Seems like a reasonable UX. >> >> If the feature is considered progressive enhancement by web developers >> there should be no issue. For those use cases that have this feature on >> the critical path, should inform the user that the UX could compromised >> on devices that do not support the feature. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Anssi > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP) > > www.fjhirsch.com > @fjhirsch > > > > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 03:18:47 UTC