W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Vibration

From: Kostiainen, Anssi <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:19:26 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Device APIs Working Group <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23634535-1BB9-45ED-8E67-282AF6627860@intel.com>
> On 19 Nov 2014, at 15:56, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Kostiainen, Anssi
> <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com> wrote:
>> Improved the "perform vibration" steps:
>>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/vibration/#dfn-perform-vibration
>> Would "this context" work considering reusability in other contexts?
> "this context" doesn't really mean anything which is why I suggested
> to just omit it. We don't really need to be super precise here I think
> since this seems like an implementation detail (or something
> implementations can compete on in terms of quality). No need for
> interoperability.

Dropped "this context". Had similar concerns.

Anne - thanks for the great feedback, I assume we're done now? I'm hoping these changes helped improve the reusability of the feature in other parts of the platform.

Frederick - I've kept the ED and the PR draft in sync.

>>> (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.
> Fair.

Michael noted this might be limited to dedicated workers.

Michael, All - if you are prototyping vibrate() in workers, please let us know how it goes so we can consider it for a future release of the spec.


Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 15:20:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:06 UTC