W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: [Screen Orientation] Best Practice wording comment

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:01:04 +1000
Message-Id: <1406541664.137713.146379173.445020F9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, at 14:34, Bruno Racineux wrote:
> Just took a peak at the latest spec [1], since Chrome Canary breaks my
> code
> made for the previous spec
> and I have to update to a dual screen.orientation object|string context
> (It
> was previously a string).
> 
> Good to see the new 'natural' keyword and angles.
> 
> 1. One minor comment on the "Best Practice 1" box for the phrase:
> "Never assume any kind of relationship between the screen orientation
> type
> and the screen orientation angle"
> 
> "Any kind" seems too strong a statement, since there is a relationship
> between type and angle during the length of a browsing context/runtime as
> mentioned afterwards.
> 
> I suggest adding a "permanent" relationship qualification and/or
> "cross-devices" dimension in that sentence.

Fixed:
https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/commit/d1adfa1b1419d534c8b124331a70c7a322451008

> 2. I am noting that the definition 1 and 2 of "reading current screen
> orientation type" is going to require that IEMobile and iOS change the
> reporting of their current screen.width and screen.height to the correct
> orientation, and stop reporting portrait only. I suppose that's a good
> thing
> even if it might break a few scripts.

Do you mean that they do not update the screen.width and screen.height
when the screen rotates?

-- Mounir
Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 10:01:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC