Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Request review of Gamepad API #281

Closed
LJWatson opened this issue May 17, 2018 · 3 comments
Closed

Request review of Gamepad API #281

LJWatson opened this issue May 17, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@LJWatson
Copy link

LJWatson commented May 17, 2018

We would welcome your review of the Gamepad API specification, as part of our wide review before transitioning to Candidate recommendation (CR).

If there are any issues arising from your review, please file them on the Gamepad Github repo, and apply the "wide review" label to each issue. This will help us track your comments and respond accordingly.

If there are no issues arising from your review, please let us know by reply to this thread.

We would appreciate your comments no later than Friday 27th June 2018. Thank you.

@torgo
Copy link
Member

torgo commented May 22, 2018

@toji can you help clarify how this fits together with work on gamepad that we've heard whispers of in the WebXR CG?

@LJWatson
Copy link
Author

In case it helps, the plan proposed by @sgraham and @cynthia gostonwas to ship an initial version of the spec as it stands/is implemented, with a view to making more substantial changes in V2 - possibly with/within the WebXR space.

@torgo torgo self-assigned this Jul 25, 2018
@cynthia
Copy link
Member

cynthia commented Jul 25, 2018

We've taken this up in the Seattle F2F, reviewed for any serious issues and was unable to find anything substantial that would warrant - say, unshipping the standard.

Some parts would be desirable to improve (e.g. getGamepads() being Promise based and behind a permission), an alternative to a polling model, and many other aspects that have already been reported in the past. We hope those aspects could be improved in the next iteration of the spec - presumably by having us take a look as early as possible.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

@cynthia cynthia closed this as completed Jul 25, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants