Remove [NoInterfaceObject]

[annevk]

Carefully consider with what name to expose these interfaces and then please drop this. We're going to remove it from IDL per whatwg/webidl#430 and whatwg/webidl#609.

[anssiko]

@annevk, thanks for the heads up.

All - DeviceAcceleration and DeviceRotationRate are the current names that are not exposed. Any concerns in exposing these interfaces using these names?

Opening the issue for discussion and suggestions.

[kenchris]

These are also the "deprecated APIs" as they are being replaced with Generic Sensors, so exposing more now seems unfortunately

[kenchris]

@reillyeon @slightlyoff

[reillyeon]

For reference the interfaces are,

interface DeviceAcceleration {
  readonly attribute double? x;
  readonly attribute double? y;
  readonly attribute double? z;
};

interface DeviceRotationRate {
  readonly attribute double? alpha;
  readonly attribute double? beta;
  readonly attribute double? gamma;
};

These are both pretty generic vectors. I wish we could reuse DOMPointReadOnly. Maybe before removing [NoInterfaceObject] we could rename them to something like DeviceMotionEventAcceleration and DeviceMotionEventRotationRate or DeviceAccelerationLegacy and DeviceRotationRateLegacy just to highlight that these types are part of this API.

[anssiko]

Thanks @reillyeon, DeviceMotionEventAcceleration and DeviceMotionEventRotationRate seem like good proposals to me.

[anssiko]

Hearing no further comments, I crafted a PR #63 to fix this issue with names proposed by @reillyeon.

[reillyeon]

@annevk While it's a pretty minor change shipping this in Blink probably still deserves an Intent to Ship and Ship since we are adding symbols to the global scope. Can I assume that Gecko is in favor of this change?

@cdumez, any feedback from WebKit?

[annevk]

@reillyeon yes, though I believe we only expose these APIs on Android and might put them behind a permission or disable them per #57. That's still under discussion.

[anssiko]

@cdumez, we have Google @reillyeon and Mozilla @annevk OK'ing this rather minor PR #63 that fixes this issue. We'll merge the PR unless we hear concerns from you.