- 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>
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. Removed. > 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: http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#dfn-perform-vibration 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. Thanks, -Anssi
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 13:48:48 UTC