- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 20:44:38 +0100
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, Christophe Dumez <dchris@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Laszlo Gombos <laszlo.gombos@gmail.com>, "Kostiainen, Anssi" <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEC208t2Q6TTLQ77qcPH+PB1hi4_KvZ2v1FfnjMy1CDJ07ZjQA@mail.gmail.com>
I am cc'ing Wonsuk and Christophe as Tizen is currently implementing (and shipping?) the API as well; it's even unprefixed. We are also supporting the current API in Crosswalk, but I am OK with the change as most of our current users are using Android which doesn't allow these specific locks. Cheers Kenneth On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to change the Screen Orientation API to make the locking > steps a bit simpler. Currently, the API tries to be flexible and allow > locking to any combination of values like "portrait", "landscape", > "portrait-primary" but also [ "portrait", "landscape-primary" ], [ > "portrait-primary", "landscape-primary" ]. The three first orientations > are very common. The others are pretty odd and I doubt I ever saw that > in the wild. > > Allowing to pass an array of orientation has a lot of impact on the > specification: > - given that the combinations are pretty exotic, we should assume that > some UA will not be able to lock because the system will not allow it > [1]; > - we have the problem of whether all the items in the array should be > available or only one of them to work. The specifacation currently > answer the question of whether "portrait" <=> [ "portrait-primary", > "portrait-secondary" ] but what about [ "landscape-primary", > "portrait-primary" ]. > > Removing this feature will allow the specification to enforce that all > states are working because it is fair to assume that the system will not > block the UA to lock to those basic orientations. In addition, this > would be a future-compatible change in the sense that adding this later > will be smooth. I am really eager to make the specification a bit less > flexible because right now, implementing this specification without > being able to lock would be following the specification. > > I am particularly interested to hear feedback from Microsoft and Mozilla > who have prefixed implementations. I know that Firefox Android only > allows the basic orientations but Firefox OS allows any orientation to > be passed I believed [2]. I unfortunately can't test IE11 on mobile. > > [1] Very likely, any UA could simply re-write the mechanism that listen > for device orientation changes and do manual screen locking based on > that, though... > [2] > > http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/widget/gonk/OrientationObserver.cpp > > -- Mounir > > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation. Phone +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2014 19:45:05 UTC