- From: Paul Bakaus <pbakaus@zynga.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:57:55 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Zynga wholeheartedly supports screen orientation locking! Am 30.01.12 14:26 schrieb "Charles McCathieNevile" unter <chaals@opera.com>: >OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick > >call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if >you support or object to this - silence will be taken as not explicitly >supporting it, and without support it isn't going to get into the draft >charter. If it does go there, there will still be opportunities to object > >but it will be harder to squeeze in. > >cheers > >Chaals > >On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:22:30 +0100, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > >> Hi all! >> >> Sorry for bringing this to the group this late, but it's a topic that's >> >> been discussed in other places and that I believe is both useful and >> mature enough to be ready for standardisation. >> >> Some applications are designed in such a way that they only make sense >> in one device orientation. The archetypical example would be a game >>that >> only works in landscape mode, but there are other examples. Right now >> native apps can support this rather easily, but web apps have been >>stuck >> with silly hacks such as detecting that the orientation is wrong and >> asking the user to rotate. This further leads to trouble when the >>device >> itself is used as a controller (e.g. in racing games) as this can >> sometimes trigger an undesired orientation change mid-game ‹ hardly a >> user-friendly experience. >> >> Note that this is not about system-level orientation lock (which would >> be fodder for another group) but application-level orientation. >> >> Options to address this have been discussed (amongst other places) here: >> >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.webapi/browse_thread/thread/f3 >>8bb05e66c01a77# >> >> There is discussion as to whether this ought to be only an API or if it >> >> should use a <meta> element (which would also give it an API since it >> could be changed dynamically), with an overall leaning towards the >> latter. I am rather confident that we should be able to agree on the >> best approach relatively quickly. >> >> I will let implementers speak for themselves, but my understanding is >> that there is interest in this feature. It is certainly a regular >> request from developers. >> >> In previous discussions we haven't hashed out who would stand up as >> editor and test facilitator, but I'm confident that we can find people. >> >> If no one else steps up, I'll take the testing hat. >> >> WDYT? >> > > >-- >Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk >http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:58:32 UTC