Hi All, The Gamepad API was briefly discussed at the LXJS conference. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekvaKmVfjtc&t=5m30s
It seems at least one developer is very unhappy with it. Have we received any other feedback from developers about it? Has any effort been made to reach out to other developers to get feedback? Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres On Thursday, October 10, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On 10/2/2013 12:31 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Hi Ted, Scott, > > > > If any of the data for the Gamepad spec in [PubStatus] is not > > accurate, please provide corrections. > > > > Also, if you have any new information re your plans for the spec - > > last published 29-May-2012 - or the spec's status with respect to > > being feature complete, implementation status, etc., please let us know. > > > > -Thanks, ArtB > > > > [PubStatus] <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> > Hi Art, > > Thanks for the nudge! My work on the spec (and the Firefox > implementation) fell by the wayside for many months, but I found some > time to work on my implementation recently. We (Mozilla) are shipping a > very-close-to-spec implementation in Nightly builds, and it's available > behind a preference in our current release (Firefox 24). > > I'd actually like to ship our implementation in release soon, I just > have a few minor implementation bugs (with significant impact) to fix as > well as one possible breaking spec change[1]. With those in order I'd be > pretty happy to ship. We'd be shipping unprefixed, as is our new policy. > > It's my understanding that Google has been shipping a prefixed > implementation that's also pretty close to the spec for some time now, > but that Scott suffers from the same "Gamepad is not really my full-time > job" problem that I do. He'd be more equipped to talk about this than I > am, certainly. > > In terms of feature-completeness I think the spec is basically done. > Aside from that one breaking change I'd like to make I don't think > there's anything else we want to address right now that couldn't be done > in a future release of the spec. We've wanted to keep the scope small > from the beginning and I think we did okay. It definitely needs some > more work (mostly polishing of the text, fixing the existing bugs), but > we could certainly get out a new WD with the most recent text. > > -Ted > > 1. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21388
