W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: CfC: publish LCWD of Screen Orientation API; deadline September 18

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 19:30:16 +1000
Message-Id: <1412155816.2555010.173822129.3EE6215B@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 23:26, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, at 21:52, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> > On 9/25/14 6:36 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > > It effectively comes down to the fact that the specification describes 
> > > something, but Chrome implements it in another way per how I suggested 
> > > it should work (using "animation frame tasks"). 
> > 
> > So this appears to be [Issue-40] and I think a one-line summary is the 
> > Editors consider this something that can be deferred to the next version 
> > and Anne considers it something that should be addressed before LC is 
> > published.
> > 
> > Vis-a-vis this CfC, it seems the main options are:
> > 
> > 1. Continue to work on this issue with the goal of getting broader 
> > consensus on the resolution
> > 
> > 2. Publish the LC "as is"
> > 
> > 3. Publish the LC "as is" but explicitly highlight this Issue and ask 
> > for Implementer/Developer feedback
> > 
> > 4. Other options?
> > 
> > Of course, I'd like to hear from others but I tend to think we should 
> > first try #1 (especially since Anne indicates the spec and at least one 
> > implementations are currently not aligned).
> > 
> > Mounir, Marcos - would you please work with Anne on a mutually agreeable 
> > solution?
> 
> Last I checked, animation frame task was still underdefined. This is
> what you can read in the WHATWG's fullscreen specification:
> "Animation frame task is not really defined yet, including relative
> order within that task, see bug 26440."
> 
> In my opinion, if the spec is changed to use "animation frame task", it
> would not change much in the current state of things.
> 
> Also, I'm not entirely sure why Anne is so loudly complaining about that
> issue. The issue was not closed or waived but postponed until we can
> properly hooked to the thing. LC doesn't freeze the specification and we
> could definitely get this fixed before moving to CR.
> 
> What I suggested to him on IRC and what I believe is the best approach
> to reconcile the two worlds (WHATWG live standards and W3C snapshots) is
> to take the current version of the spec to LC and update the ED to use
> animation frame task and mark it as a WIP feature. I opened issue 75
> last week as a reminder to do that.
> 
> Arthur, what do you think of that solution?

Given the lack of answer, should we just go ahead and follow that plan?

-- Mounir
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 09:30:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:31 UTC