Re: [w3c/gamepad] Added GamepadPose and GamepadCapabilities (#25)

> +        <dd>
> +          Angular acceleration of the gamepad in meters per second. MUST be null
> +          if the sensor is incapable of providing angular acceleration. When not
> +          null MUST be a three-element array.
> +        </dd>
> +      </dl>
> +    </section>
> +
> +    <section>
> +      <h2><dfn>GamepadCapabilities</dfn> Interface</h2>
> +      <p>
> +        This interface defines the gamepad's hardware capabilities.
> +      </p>
> +
> +      <dl title='interface GamepadCapabilities' class='idl'>
> +        <dt>readonly attribute boolean hasPosition</dt>

I'd opt for #1. In a follow-up PR, instead of a `GamepadCapabilities` that seems specific to VR, can we rename the properties or have a nested object for VR-specific properties?

What about just having `GamepadPose#position` return `undefined` if the gamepad does not support positional tracking? Do you think we can perhaps opt for returning `undefined`, `null`, and `Float32Array`s instead of introducing a new interface? (Or even maybe instead of having a separate `GamepadCapabilities` interface, could we just make `hasPosition`, `hasOrientation`, etc. be part of `GamepadPose`?

What are your thoughts?

(P.S. Sorry for the delays. Just got back from PTO.)

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/gamepad/pull/25/files/352f178964cf1c7c81fb2323d41d50d07c73e366#r72883779