- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 23:20:21 +1100
- To: John Mellor <johnme@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Christiansen, Kenneth R" <kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com>
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 15:48, Jonas Sicking wrote: > My impression has been that the vast majority of apps only need a > single orientation that is independent of media-query results. If > that's the case, then I think the above is too complicated. I.e. if > that is the common case, then we should support: > > "orientation": ["landscape"], > > or maybe even > > "orientation": "landscape", I definitely agree with that. Though, we should allow both syntaxes (array and string). If we want a more complex system later, we could move to that. For the moment, I think we should keep it simple. Also, when comparing how applications handle landscape/portrait, it is worth considering how common/easy it is to write responsive UI on the platform. iOS has a very limited number of device sizes so I am not really surprised that iOS applications try to optimize for some sizes (thus arbitrary ignore some others). Is that common on Android? Would that be common using Web applications? On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 22:03, John Mellor wrote: > Assuming @viewport is included in inline CSS in the <head> (which it > needs > to be anyway, so the preload scanner can evaluate media attributes and > responsive images), then the UA will parse the @viewport before it starts > painting anything. Is there any benefit to the UA knowing the orientation > before it starts painting the page? Not sure. Maybe if there are some bits of system UI, rotating that could take longer than painting? -- Mounir
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 12:20:49 UTC