[whatwg] IFRAME with conrols
It is years since we have popup blockers. Still most intranet application uses window.open() frequently. Usually it is to easily code a closable window with close/min/max controls. As a user, I wish we could encourage to stop the need for coding popup window. Can HTML5 add controls attribute to iframe, something similar to video tag controls attribute. Or even better if we can specify what all controls to show/not show. (ideally by default show all, and explicitly code not show options) iframe src=some.html controls=max:no, min:no, close:yes, resize:yes, popout:yes, move:yes /iframe If an iframe have controls attribute it should be behave/displayed like a MDI child window. And have some methods like. iframeObject.open(); // display window with current url iframeObject.open(url); // display window navigate to new url iframeObject.close(); // hide window iframeObject.minimize(); iframeObject.maximize(); iframeObject.resize(width, height); iframeObject.move(x, y); Cheers
[whatwg] HTML tags.Panorama, Photo Sphere, Surround shots
New cameras/phone cameras comes with Panorama, Photo Sphere, Surround shot options. But there is no standard way to display the image on a webpage. Can WHATWG standardize it and provide HTML tags. Photo Sphere https://www.google.com/maps/about/contribute/photosphere/ Surround shot http://www.samsung.com/us/support/faq/FAQ00057110/74008 Cheers
Re: [whatwg] New approach to activities/intents
Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl writes: A couple of us at Mozilla have been trying to figure out how to revive activities/intents for the web. Both work relatively well in closed environments such as Firefox OS and Android, but seem harder to deploy in a generic way on the web. What we've been looking at instead is solving a smaller use case. A Sharing API to start and then hopefully reuse the building blocks for other features that need to be liberated. https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Sharing/API has a sketch for what a very minimal Sharing API could look like. Our thinking is that something like the overlay browsing context could be reused to make e.g. input type=file or save as extensible going forward. However, admittedly it still doesn't really click. It feels a bit too much like e.g. the various search extensions browsers offer. Too much work for little return. Furthermore, freeing the web somehow from closely knitted silos seems like a worthwhile goal, but is often counter to what those silos are interested in. So it might be that we're still not quite there yet, thoughts appreciated. I would actually love it if I got something more like the search extensions, as they do work unobtrusively and without scripting. I also find creating OpenSearch XML easier than scripting stuff. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
Re: [whatwg] New approach to activities/intents
Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net writes: On 2014-11-13 18:19, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: AFAIK, all of these interface details lie outside the scope of the HTML specification (and rightly so, IMHO). If you need a standard symbol for bookmarks I suggest to use U+1F516 BOOKMARK, which looks like this „“. Then don't spec it but advise or suggest it. Even the bookmark example at https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#link-type-bookmark says A user agent could determine which permalink applies to which part of the spec thereby acting as a advisory hint/best practice suggestion (note the use of could). I also tested the example code (with doctype html obviously) and the browser behaviouir is still the same, rel=bookmark is simply ignored. In that case shouldn't rel=bookmark be removed from the WHATWG HTML spec to reflect actual use? As long as it is produced and there do exist consumers? Probably not – many browsers also do ignore rel=alternative, the cite attributes on quotations, the datetime attribute on ins and del elements and so on. -- Nils Dagsson Moskopp // erlehmann http://dieweltistgarnichtso.net
