I support, but I think it tied into the device adaptions spec, fullscreen and also splash screen support.
Kenneth On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Charles McCathieNevile <cha...@opera.com>wrote: > OK, since I was planning to have the charter up today, let's have a quick > call for consensus on this. Please reply by end of business Wednesday if > you support or object to this - silence will be taken as not explicitly > supporting it, and without support it isn't going to get into the draft > charter. If it does go there, there will still be opportunities to object > but it will be harder to squeeze in. > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:22:30 +0100, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > > Hi all! >> >> Sorry for bringing this to the group this late, but it's a topic that's >> been discussed in other places and that I believe is both useful and mature >> enough to be ready for standardisation. >> >> Some applications are designed in such a way that they only make sense in >> one device orientation. The archetypical example would be a game that only >> works in landscape mode, but there are other examples. Right now native >> apps can support this rather easily, but web apps have been stuck with >> silly hacks such as detecting that the orientation is wrong and asking the >> user to rotate. This further leads to trouble when the device itself is >> used as a controller (e.g. in racing games) as this can sometimes trigger >> an undesired orientation change mid-game — hardly a user-friendly >> experience. >> >> Note that this is not about system-level orientation lock (which would be >> fodder for another group) but application-level orientation. >> >> Options to address this have been discussed (amongst other places) here: >> >> http://groups.google.com/**group/mozilla.dev.webapi/** >> browse_thread/thread/**f38bb05e66c01a77#<http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.webapi/browse_thread/thread/f38bb05e66c01a77#> >> >> There is discussion as to whether this ought to be only an API or if it >> should use a <meta> element (which would also give it an API since it could >> be changed dynamically), with an overall leaning towards the latter. I am >> rather confident that we should be able to agree on the best approach >> relatively quickly. >> >> I will let implementers speak for themselves, but my understanding is >> that there is interest in this feature. It is certainly a regular request >> from developers. >> >> In previous discussions we haven't hashed out who would stand up as >> editor and test facilitator, but I'm confident that we can find people. If >> no one else steps up, I'll take the testing hat. >> >> WDYT? >> >> > > -- > Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com > > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Senior Engineer Nokia Mobile Phones, Browser / WebKit team Phone +45 4093 0598 / E-mail kenneth at webkit. <http://gmail.com>org http://codeposts.blogspot.com ﹆﹆﹆