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: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:36:54 +0200
Cc: W3C CoreMob CG <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-Id: <75664A0F-36EF-4681-9218-21F3DF7F29AE@berjon.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
On Jun 19, 2012, at 11:11 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:32:07 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:
>> 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?

It depends on how widgets are implemented :) There's nothing that says that widgets have to run chromeless (though they usually do).

> (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).

Widgets are easy to implement. I wonder how many have been security audited though  it's easy to get things rather wrong.

>> 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.

Actually, we have to think a little bit beyond this being equal to view-mode=fullscreen. On (most) mobile devices, since every application is always full screen, when you remove the chrome you get a full screen application. But on anything that has an windowing system, there's a difference. I think that what's wanted here is view-mode=chromeless, which in a windowed environment would give you an app without chrome but not necessarily occupying the entire screen. And, of course, a way of requesting that a given view-mode be activated.

>> 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.

Why could this not be an additional view-mode, which could be included in the application configuration that WebApps is working on?

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:37:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:05:47 UTC