Re: Haptics CSS extension proposal

Good call, TJ. I just wanted to formulate a possible syntax for
upcoming devices that use haptics and I think you have a good point
about under- or over-standardizing.

Thanks,Chris Nager

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Chris Nager <cnager@gmail.com
<cnager@gmail.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Haptics%20CSS%20extension%20proposal&In-Reply-To=%253CCAAWBYDBiaH4zCTpsc%3Dr9%2BwZiTLtZhnnOR32B9cqfaYyxzV_3Sw%40mail.gmail.com%253E&References=%253CCAAWBYDBiaH4zCTpsc%3Dr9%2BwZiTLtZhnnOR32B9cqfaYyxzV_3Sw%40mail.gmail.com%253E>>
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