- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:11:47 +0300
2010-09-23 06:26 EEST: Shiv Kumar: >> Is this proposal not good enough? >> https://wiki.mozilla.org/index.php?title=Gecko:FullScreenAPI > > That proposal covers the video element but is way too broad. Digesting and > analyzing it would take quite an effort. It will probably also require a > really good test harness. Are you trying to say that video elements should have a specialized fullscreen API as opposed to generic fullscreen API that's suitable for anything? If so, I definitely don't agree. I think that the Gecko Fullscreen API proposal is pretty good. I'd only change void requestFullScreen(unsigned short flags) to void requestFullScreen(unsigned short flags, function callback) where callback function will be asynchronously called with true or false once the UA has completed the request (true meaning the request was accepted, false meaning that request was declined). In addition, the proposal should probably suggest that request should be automatically declined in case a new identical request is raised immediately after declining previous request (denial of service attack). What kind of digesting and analyzing do you think is required? An UA is free to implement support for this API in a way that will ever accept the request only if the requested element is the video element. In that case, the API is a specialized video fullscreen API only. However, this proposal has the advantage of not being limited to video elements only in theory. Actual implementations may obviously differ. -- Mikko -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100923/c889349c/attachment.pgp>
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 03:11:47 UTC