Hello, Work has started on a Gamepad (Joystick) spec in the W3C WebEvents WG.
If you're interested in commenting or participating, the mailing list can be found at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/ For reference, the draft in-progress can be found at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/tip/gamepad.html scott On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Scott Graham <scot...@chromium.org> wrote: > Thanks Simon and Dimitri, I wasn't familiar with the procedure for > attacking these sorts of things. > > I've started a discussion on public-webapps, which will hopefully help > to clarify a sensible API. Please add your voice if you have the time > and inclination: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/1019.html > > If the discussion proves fruitful, I will re-approach the WebKit > community to figure out the best way to work on a prototype > implementation. I've closed the previously mentioned bug for now. > > scott > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglaz...@chromium.org> > wrote: >> We should do this right, you won't hear any arguments from me. But I >> am also sure that "W3C time investment" is a code word for years of >> soul-sucking bureaucratic drudgery. As such, I don't think you meant >> we should be using W3C process as the measuring stick for doing things >> "right" in WebKit. There would not be WebKit if we did. >> >> What I hope you meant instead is: >> * study the problem in the larger context of a Web platform >> * come up with a set of use cases that cover the problem >> * design a solution based on the use cases >> * build consensus with browser vendors while prototyping it in WebKit >> * write a spec and a test suite that makes sense >> * submit this to W3C as time permits. >> >> That's what we've always done, right? >> >> :DG< >> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> >> wrote: >>> My main objection to adding this is that it's just one of many different >>> types of input device, and if we add these piecemeal for each device that >>> takes our fancy, we'll end up with a horrible mishmash of different input >>> events. >>> >>> I'd prefer a more general strategy of thinking about all the various types >>> of input events (e.g. joysticks, remote controls, assistive devices), and >>> having an API that caters for all of them. This of course would require >>> significant W3C time investment. >>> >>> Simon >>> >>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Scott Graham <scot...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's too early to implement this. We should wait until it's a W3C >>>>>> draft at least. >>>>> >>>>> There's certainly work to be done in improving the design. I'm not >>>>> proposing >>>>> to slavishly implement the API exactly as specified there. >>>>> However, I would like to prototype and help with the design of this API by >>>>> iterating an implementation in the Chromium port. >>>>> Is a feature flag inappropriate for this? i.e. Should that sort of >>>>> prototype >>>>> work be kept downstream indefinitely or until we have a draft spec? >>>> >>>> FWIW, keeping implementation "downstream" (that is in Chromium) is >>>> basically an equivalent of forking, and we should work hard to avoid >>>> that. But certainly not by just rejecting prototyping outright -- >>>> because the only workaround for that is forking. >>>> >>>> :DG< >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
