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

Hi Arthur,

In the Screen Orientation API draft, I don't see any references to
locking. Is this by design?


Am 06.02.12 13:19 schrieb "Arthur Barstow" unter <>:

>Given the positive responses to this CfC, the Screen Orientation API has
>now been added to the Additions Agreed section of charter changes wiki
>On 1/30/12 8:26 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile 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 <>
>> 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)
>>> 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?

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 09:22:18 UTC