Re: [whatwg] Fullscreenchange event
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 04:18:37 +0200, Chris Pearce cpea...@mozilla.com wrote: Should we still dispatch the fullscreenchange event to the element which requested fullscreen if the element was removed from its document before the event was dispatched? What if the element was added to another document before the event could be dispatched? Should we dispatch to requester's original document in these cases? Or just not dispatch the event? We'll be exiting full-screen in this case anyway, since the element was removed from the doc. Or should we do something else? There's a similar case with the user exiting fullscreen before the events have dispatched. Accounting for it seems like needless complexity. Having the event dispatch twice combined with simply checking document.fullscreenElement seems sufficient. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: [whatwg] Fullscreen Update
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:57 PM, James Graham jgra...@opera.com wrote: On 10/19/2011 06:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Is that an acceptable limitation? Alternatively we could postpone the nested fullscreen scenario for now (i.e. make requestFullscreen fail if already fullscreen). I think punting on this makes sense. Pages can detect the failure and do something sane (make the element take the whole viewport size). If the feature becomes necessary we can add it in v2. I don't think punting on nested fullscreen is a good idea. It's not some edge case that most applications can't hit. For example, it will come up with any content that can go full-screen and can contain an embedded Youtube video. (It'll come up even more often if browser fullscreen UI is integrated with DOM fullscreen, which we definitely plan to do in Firefox.) If we don't support nested fullscreen well, then the user experience will be either -- making the video fullscreen while the containing content is already fullscreen simply doesn't work, or -- the video can go fullscreen, but when you exit fullscreen on the video, the containing content also loses fullscreen Both of these are clearly broken IMHO. Rob -- If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. [1 John 1:8-10]
Re: [whatwg] New attributes would degrade better than new elements
27.10.2011 3:11, Ashley Sheridan wrote: Try telling me Google isn't aware of HTML5 in web pages and I'll laugh. OK, I'll try: Google does not care about new HTML5 elements. Do you feel amused now? Can you please now do me, and others, a favor and give some evidence of actual Google behavior in this respect? If it's something that we need to be aware of, it should be observable from outside Google, i.e. when using Google, not just in their internal code that is not public. So which effects can we observe? (This would be interesting in its own account, even though it does not prove that new _elements_ were needed for that. But it would give some perspective regarding the eagerness to add and promote new elements.) - - you shouldn't use attributes to determine the meaning of the content. That sounds like a prejudice based on the introduction of many presentational attributes in HTML 3.2 and their preservation in later versions. It does not in any way mean that attributes as such are presentational and not semantic. HTML5 tries hard to distinguish between table indicating tabular data and table being used merely as layout tool - and the distinction is largely based on the use of attributes in the table element and its descendants. It is certainly wise to keep table as dual (tabular data vs. layout) for compatibility, instead of introducing new elements to distinguish them - no matter how logical or semantic such an idea might sound. Using attributes in div to indicate navigational areas, articles, etc., would similarly be useful for compatibility and would be much clearer and more logical, as the meaning would be uniquely defined by a single attribute - not by some rather messy rules involving several elements and attributes. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Re: [whatwg] New attributes would degrade better than new elements
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 16:38 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Can you please now do me, and others, a favor and give some evidence of actual Google behavior in this respect? If it's something that we need to be aware of, it should be observable from outside Google, i.e. when using Google, not just in their internal code that is not public. So which effects can we observe? I stand corrected, Google doesn't yet do this. - - you shouldn't use attributes to determine the meaning of the content. That sounds like a prejudice based on the introduction of many presentational attributes in HTML 3.2 and their preservation in later versions. It does not in any way mean that attributes as such are presentational and not semantic. It's not prejudice, it's observation. With the exception of the a tag that I mentioned and the input tag that Boris Zbarsky mentioned, HTML tags are used to describe the content they contain and not attributes of a generic tag. instead of introducing new elements to distinguish them - no matter how logical or semantic such an idea might sound. Using attributes in div to indicate navigational areas, articles, etc., would similarly be useful for compatibility and would be much clearer and more logical, as the meaning would be uniquely defined by a single attribute - not by some rather messy rules involving several elements and attributes. In the same way that semantic tags were added in HTML4 instead of backwards compatible attributes the HTML5 specs are adding new tags. You keep mentioning that we should use div tags for everything that the new HTML5 tags are being used for now, but you seem to forget that this is just the same situation as we had years ago when HTML4 was announced as a spec. Why was it OK to introduce new tags then but not now? -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [whatwg] New attributes would degrade better than new elements
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Jukka K. Korpela jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote: It is certainly wise to keep table as dual (tabular data vs. layout) for compatibility, instead of introducing new elements to distinguish them - no matter how logical or semantic such an idea might sound. I heard there are plans to create new tags for layouts to replace the use of tables as layout elements. You keep speaking of creating new attributes instead of adding new tags but then what is the point in adding new attributes instead of simply using classes which are far more compatible on past browsers? And WHATWG is working hard to ensure compatability of new additions with old browsers(the DOCTYPE for example). So I am positive issues like this one were already discussed and dismissed for some reason or another, have you tried searching the archives? maybe there you'll find the answers you are looking for. Regards, Eric
