W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > June 2012

Re: coremob-ISSUE-8: No spec to point to for Full-screen mode. [COREMOB-1]

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:11:49 +0200
To: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>, "Core Mobile Web Platform Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>, "Tobie Langel" <tobie@fb.com>
Message-ID: <op.wf47tzylwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:32:07 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/12 9:14 AM, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:00:47 +0200, Core Mobile Web Platform Community
>> Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Full-screen mode is within the scope of the WebApps WG's charter
>>> (http://www.w3.org/2012/webapps/charter/). Could end up as an attribute
>>>
>>> of Application Configuration.
>>
>> There are bits in webapps (the API bits) and bits in CSS (the CSS bits -
>> oddly enough ;) ). And we should have a FPWD soon, but there are some
>> administrivial hoops we still have to jump through.
>
> You referring to [Fullscreen], I suppose. I should rename this feature to
> chromeless to avoid confusion (although that might create another kind of
> confusion).

Ah. Something like widgets?

(I saw another implementation of widgets last week running in a SMIL  
player on top of a webkit browser. I wonder how many there really are, and  
have been).

> Afaik, the Fullscreen API you're referring to lets you take a DOM element
> and make it full screen.

Right.

> Here, what we're interested in is an API that lets us advise the UA
> upfront we'd rather run without any browser chrome, similar to
> [view-mode]'s fullscreen mode or Apple's [apple-mobile-web-app-capable]
> meta tag.

OK, sorry for being confused.

> I feel like a declarative API would be better for this.

So being able to request a view-mode? That's in the widgets P&C although  
it sounds like there is a goal to seperate config from packaging and be  
able to use live web content. That has been expressed before (and is the  
conceptual difference between widgets on the one hand appcache and the  
proposed JSON packaging manifest offers on the other, the rest being a  
matter of syntax and implementation quality).

The place for that might be the native-web-apps community group.

cheers

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:12:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC