Re: CfC Re: Charter addition proposal: screen orientation lock

I support, but I think it tied into the device adaptions spec, fullscreen
and also splash screen support.

Kenneth

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>wrote:

> 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/**f38bb05e66c01a77#<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.webapi/browse_thread/thread/f38bb05e66c01a77#>
>>
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Senior Engineer
Nokia Mobile Phones, Browser / WebKit team
Phone  +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit. <http://gmail.com>org

http://codeposts.blogspot.com ﹆﹆﹆