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. ~TJReceived on Friday, 19 October 2012 20:39:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:22 UTC