Re: [w3c/screen-orientation] TPAC 2025 status report (Issue #258)

marcoscaceres left a comment (w3c/screen-orientation#258)

## Screen Orientation — Activity Report (last 12 months)

**Window:** 2024-10 → 2025-10  
**Focus:** Open PRs needing review/decision; open issues that may block CR.

### 1) Open Pull Requests (need review/decision)
- #272 — **Add hidden document monitoring in parallel orientation lock steps** (ensures lock state responds when document visibility changes).  
- #271 — **Standardize `window.orientation` API** (proposes integrating legacy compat behavior + tests).  
- #270 — **Add continuous monitoring for pre-lock conditions** (explicitly re-checks pre-conditions; unlocks when they stop holding).  
- #269 — **Refactor fullscreen rejection handling to use WebIDL `react` pattern** (aligns with Fullscreen/HTML promise semantics).  
- #268 — **Fix iframe promise rejection in unloading document cleanup** (reject pending `lock()` in child documents on unload).  
- #267 — **Editorial: Fix pre-lock conditions algorithm structure** (clarity, no behavior change).  
- #266 — **Address privacy review feedback** (tighten gating; reduce fingerprinting surface).  
- Older, still open for consideration:  
  - #231 — **Allow `unlock()` to return a promise**.  
  - #218 — **Consume user activation** (gating detail).

### 2) Open Issues (candidates for TPAC discussion)
- #262 — **Are `ScreenOrientation` change events scoped as tightly as possible?** (top-level / user-attended scoping).  
- #261 — **Editorial: pre-lock conditions definition placement** (readability; no behavioral change intended).  
- #260 — **Fingerprinting risk: devices configured to not permit screen locking** (privacy).  
- #259 — **TPAC 2025 status report** (tracking).  
- #258 — **Should pending promise abort if document isn't top-level?**  
- #257 — **Should orientation lock abort or be ignored when document becomes hidden (8.3 parallel step)?**  
- #256 — **Should fullscreen pre-lock also check parent document’s fullscreen state?**  
- #255 — **Should fullscreen pre-lock also check for a pending fullscreen request?**  
- #254 — **Use “user attention” of top-level traversable** (gating).

### 3) Suggested TPAC discussion bundles
- **Locking lifecycle & algorithm coherence**: #270, #269, #268, #267, #258/#257/#256/#255/#254  
  *Goal:* confirm the model, align with Fullscreen/HTML behaviors, and identify any WPT gaps.  
- **Privacy posture**: #266, #260, #262  
  *Goal:* agree on scoping/gating language and any normative requirements.  
- **Compat**: #271 (+ issue history around `window.orientation`)  
  *Goal:* decide whether to incorporate `window.orientation`; confirm tests and UA positions.



-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues/258#issuecomment-3414142431
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/screen-orientation/issues/258/3414142431@github.com>