- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:03:54 -0500
- To: Jan Norden <jan.norden@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 2016-12-14 10:27, Jan Norden a écrit : > That is indeed a much better wording, though I think it is more > appropriate > to add them before > https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-window-innerwidth, in anaoigy > with > https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-window-screen > <https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-window-screeny>x and > https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-window-outerwidth . > > Given that, what is the correct way to propose adding > window.innerScreenX > and window.innerScreenY to the draft standard? You can do many things. 1- File a bug report in major mainstream browers who do not support none of screenLeft, screenTop, mozInnerscreenX, mozInnerScreenY. I see you did that already https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=151983 although it was closed with the main reason being that it is not a widely requested demand. 2- Once major mainstream browers support a proprietary, non-standard (vendor-prefixed or not) window pair of property, complaint gently but advocate relentlessly about non-standard, non-interoperable implementations in major mainstream browsers. 3- Find the CSSOM View Module spec editor and try to get his attention and his support; right now, it's Simon Pieters. 4- Find the mailing list where the CSSOM View Module people discuss issues, matters, make propositions, debate how to improve things, etc... 5- Create a webpage exposing clearly and in a resounding manner the incompatibilities involved (a judicious live interactive DHTML example is best) and bring up (quote) related documentation. This is where I would focus on if I were you. 6- Find and list supporters of your proposal where they explain why they are bothered or constrained or restrained by current status. 7- Find out why Mozilla developers created and implemented mozInnerscreenX, mozInnerScreenY > And what is the process for getting such a proposal approved/rejected? Patience. Good planning. Gérard > 2016-12-14 16:09 GMT+01:00 Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>: > >> Le 2016-12-13 08:46, Jan Norden a écrit : >> >>> There is currently no good way of translation a position in a browser >>> to a >>> position on the screen. >>> >> >> Jan, >> >> Let me rephrase what I believe you were trying to say here, like this: >> there is currently no possible way of getting (retrieving) window's >> viewport (or client area) x and y coordinates of a browser in relation >> to >> the (operating system) screen area. >> >> Our particular need is translating a gaze-position >>> (which we have in screen coordinates from our eyetracking hardware). >>> >>> It is possible in Firefox, using the proprietary >>> mozInnerScreenX/mozInnerScreenY, >>> but not in general. >>> >> >> window.screenX >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Window/screenX >> >> window.mozInnerScreenX >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/mozInnerScreenX >> >> window.screenY >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/API/Window/screenY >> >> window.mozInnerScreenY >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/mozInnerScreenY >> >> >> I added the mozInnerScreenX and mozInnerScreenY properties into an old >> webpage >> >> http://www.gtalbot.org/DHTMLSection/WindowEventsNS6.html >> >> and, as far as I can see, the mozInnerScreenX and mozInnerScreenY >> properties return the equivalent of IE's screenLeft and screenTop. >> >> " >> There is a major incompatibility between MSIE 5+ window.screenTop and >> NS >> 6+ window.screenY. MSIE 5+ calculates the distance from the top of the >> content area (client area) to the top side of the screen. NS 6+ >> calculates >> the distance from the top of the browser's window to the top side of >> the >> screen. There seems to be no way to figure out the height of chrome >> elements (menu bar, tools bar, address bar, links bar) present in the >> browser for MSIE 5+. >> " >> so, the addition of mozInnerScreenX and mozInnerScreenY properties >> makes >> sense. >> >> http://www.gtalbot.org/DHTMLSection/ScreenXYComparedScreenLeftTop.html >> >> IE6, IE7, IE8 supported window.screenLeft and window.screenTop which >> are, >> by definition, the equivalent of mozInnerScreenX and mozInnerScreenY. >> I >> presumed here that window.screenLeft and window.screenTop are still >> supported by IE9, IE10, IE11. >> >> window.screenLeft >> "Retrieves the x-coordinate of the upper left-hand corner of the >> window >> frame, relative to the upper left-hand corner of the screen." >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms534389(v=vs.85).aspx >> >> window.screenTop >> "Retrieves the y-coordinate of the upper left-hand corner of the >> window >> frame, relative to the upper left-hand corner of the screen. " >> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms534390(v=vs.85).aspx >> >> Returning now to your initial statement, I believe there is a way of >> getting window's viewport (or client area) position of a browser in >> relation to the (operating system) screen area in Gecko-based browsers >> and >> in IE browsers. I do not know (I can not verify) if window.screenLeft >> and >> window.screenTop are supported in Edge12+ browsers but typically >> Microsoft >> does not remove proprietary attributes or properties of objects unless >> there is already a web standard (and widespread-used) equivalent. So I >> would presume that window.screenLeft and window.screenTop are >> supported in >> Edge12+ browsers too. >> >> From a web standards point of view, best would be to have and to use >> only >> 1 pair of property name (window.innerScreenX and window.innerScreenY, >> no >> moz prefix), to have Microsoft to drop window.screenLeft and >> window.screenTop and to include such pair of property names in >> CSSOM View Module >> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/ >> inside the §4. Extensions to the Window Interface, say, right after, >> https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom-view/#dom-window-screeny >> >> Gérard >>
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 16:04:29 UTC