W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Fullscreen API

From: Alistair MacDonald <al@bocoup.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 16:28:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4D51B594.5040108@bocoup.com>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Hi FX,

We were just discussing this thread at work. Rick Waldron, made a good 
case for including full-screen behavior in the CSS3 Spec. I thought it 
would be worth sharing with the group.

1) Full-screen by definition is primarily a visual / layout behavior.
2) JavaScript by default: if you can style it in CSS, you should be able 
get to it through a JavaScript API, this behavior would be very similar 
to the existing way you change styles.
4) Changing screen-size (window-size) would cause the HTML content to 
re-flow anyway, which is a CSS issue.
5) HTML by default: you could style attributes of a BODY or other HTML 
tag to be full-screen, without cluttering the HTML/App spec.
6) CSS3 Spec is still open.

Hope that helps,

Al





On 02/08/2011 03:12 PM, Dean Jackson wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:
>
>> Hi, Simon, Maciej-
>>
>> Simon Fraser wrote (on 2/8/11 2:18 PM):
>>> I agree that CSS or SVG don't seem like the right places for the
>>> fullscreen API. There are some other more script-driven APIs that fall
>>> into the same boat, like the animation proposal:
>>> <http://webstuff.nfshost.com/anim-timing/Overview.html>.
>>>
>>> Web Apps seems most appropriate to me.
>> I've explained already the difficulties of adding them to WebApps WG. We've all seen how time-consuming and painful it is to recharter.
>>
>> If we have the right stakeholder in the FX TF (which we seem to), what is your specific concern about doing them here?  You are speaking about impressions, but facts would be more useful in coming to a decision.
> You seem to agree that it probably belongs in WebApps, but that it would be frustrating to make that happen because it isn't in the charter. So you suggest FX, for which is doesn't seem to fit, other than that group may have the right set of people (I assume simply because CSS + SVG gives you many browser vendors), and that a task force has a more liberal approach to charters.
>
> It seems the answer is to simply create a task force or working group with a completely open-ended charter, so that it can do whatever it wants. I'm obviously joking.
>
> I think if you want the API to be taken seriously it should be in the group where it is most appropriate. Not the group where it is most convenient.
>
> (I partly wonder if the whole WG approach is too heavyweight since they cover multiple specifications. Why not have a WG per specification? That would allow people to make the IP commitment on a much finer grain. I guess that is what Incubator Groups are for, so why isn't this an incubator if you're worried about charters?)
>
> Dean
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2011 21:31:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 February 2011 21:31:24 GMT