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

On 6/19/12 6:31 PM, "Scott Wilson" <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>On 19 Jun 2012, at 10:36, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>Is that VMMF or something else? I see VMMF just went to REC.

Yes. And it indeed just did.

--tobie

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:35:47 UTC