- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:38:58 -0700
- To: Chris Nager <cnager@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Chris Nager <cnager@gmail.com> wrote: > I appreciate your feedback. Though the devices that use haptics are rare, > there's nothing wrong with proposing possible properties and syntax on how > we could take advantage of these future hardware features. Even if many of > my proposed properties (like temperature) are not able to be used any time > soon, the syntax is arguably future proof and allows for a certain degree of > change. While there's nothing wrong with *proposing* such things ahead of the technology, actually standardizing them ahead of hardware that can consume them is likely a bad idea. It's very easy to both over- and under-standardize when you're doing it speculatively. The best approach for these kinds of fundamentally new things, I think, is for interested vendors to experiment with *prefixed* properties for this sort of hardware, and as they become popular, we can then come along behind and standardize what has proved useful. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 20:39:44 UTC