Re: [w3c/gamepad] Move vibrationActuator to the main spec (PR #190)

@gabrielsanbrito commented on this pull request.



> +          Promise<boolean> pulse(double value, double duration);
+        };
+      </pre>
+      <dt>
+        <dfn>pulse()</dfn> method
+      </dt>
+      <dd>
+        <p>
+          <code>pulse()</code> applies a <var>value</var> to the actuator for
+          <var>duration</var> milliseconds. The <var>value</var> passed to
+          <code>pulse()</code> is clamped to limits defined by the actuator
+          type. The returned Promise will resolve <code>true</code> once the
+          pulse has completed.
+        </p>
+        <p>
+          Repeated calls to <code>pulse()</code> override the previous

I didn't write this part of the spec. This `pulse()` definition is already in the [Gamepad Extensions spec](https://w3c.github.io/gamepad/extensions.html#dom-gamepadhapticactuator-pulse). Although, my understanding is that it is not clear whether `p1` would be rejected or resolved with `false`. I think that by "override" the writer meant that any currently playing pulse effect (`p1`) should be immediately preempted, and `p2` should start playing right away  I think that it should look something like:
- If `p1` is preempted, resolve with `true`, because it was playing anyways;
- If `p1` didn't start playing at all, resolve with `false`
- If `pulse` is not supported for any reason, reject the promise with an error.

However, since this exact wording is already in the extensions document, I would suggest leaving it as it is right now to focus on moving `vibrationActuator` to the main spec. Later on we can discuss further on how to better specify `pulse` and the `hapticActuators` array. What do you think? 

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/gamepad/pull/190#discussion_r1406675782
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/gamepad/pull/190/review/1751245334@github.com>