- From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 13:26:36 +0000
- To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- CC: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org>, Nick Doty <npdoty@ischool.berkeley.edu>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
> On 03 Feb 2016, at 14:39, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote: > > Charles > > Thanks, looks like we have a way forward with PER. We should make sure there are no other errata before proceeding (and of course agree on this one). If we can publish a Proposed Edited Recommendation without excess process hoops then that'd be great. Would the following work as an alternative to PER: update the Editor's Draft, link to the ED spec and HTML diff from errata. Regarding other errata: Since the Vibration API Rec'd, the Page Visibility spec added a "steps to determine if the document is hidden" [2] hook, so we should align with that (caveat: the Page Visibility spec with this hook is still ED). In practice, the step 3 in processing vibration patterns [1] would be changed from: [[ If the hidden attribute [PAGE-VISIBILITY] is set to true, then return false and terminate these steps. ]] Into: [[ If the result of running the steps to "determine if the document is hidden" [PAGE-VISIBILITY] is true, then return false and terminate these steps. ]] Thanks, -Anssi [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/#dfn-processing-vibration-patterns [2] https://w3c.github.io/page-visibility/#dfn-steps-to-determine-if-the-document-is-hidden
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 13:27:08 UTC