W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2013

Re: [whatwg] A question about portrait-secondary of screen orientation

From: Chundong Wang <chunwang@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:28:33 +0000
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <f2c89a992f0245228a4c839a989cfc14@BLUPR03MB245.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Will do so. Thanks!

From Windows Phone
From: Ian Hickson<mailto:ian@hixie.ch>
Sent: ‎2013/‎7/‎12 10:26
To: Chundong Wang<mailto:chunwang@microsoft.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org<mailto:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] A question about portrait-secondary of screen orientation

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Chundong Wang wrote:
> Hello - Got a question of screen orientation on portrait/landscape.
> Let's say we have a device doesn't support portrait-secondary, by
> spec<http://www.w3.org/TR/screen-orientation/> we should remove it from
> allow list which is fine. However if web developer specified "portrait"
> instead of "portrait-primary" for lockOrientation(), which I suppose is
> a common case, we'll have to expand it to "portrait-primary,
> portrait-secondary" according spec. In this case the lockOrientation()
> would fail because orientations isn't a supported orientation set. I
> don't think it'll satisfy the original purpose of "portrait".
> IMHO, we should explain this more detailed.  We could either,
> 1.  Only expand "portrait"(or "landscape") into allowed orientations,
> or;
> 2.  Filter out disallowed orientations from orientation sequence and
> lock the screen with that list.

I believe feedback on this specification is intended to be sent to

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 17:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:03 UTC