Hi,
I would like to change the Screen Orientation API to make the locking
steps a bit simpler. Currently, the API tries to be flexible and allow
locking to any combination of values like "portrait", "landscape",
"portrait-primary" but also [ "portrait", "landscape-primary" ], [
"portrait-primary",
I am cc'ing Wonsuk and Christophe as Tizen is currently implementing (and
shipping?) the API as well; it's even unprefixed.
We are also supporting the current API in Crosswalk, but I am OK with the
change as most of our current users are using Android which doesn't allow
these specific locks.
Che
I'd be fine with changing the API to only take a single string value.
I agree the usecases for locking to multiple orientations isn't strong
enough to warrant the compatibility complexities that come from the
fact that you can't implement the API on android. At least I haven't
heard such usecases.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 6:44, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote:
> I am cc'ing Wonsuk and Christophe as Tizen is currently implementing (and
> shipping?) the API as well; it's even unprefixed.
>
> We are also supporting the current API in Crosswalk, but I am OK with the
> change as most of our curr
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> However it does mean that we need to also have a way to define that
> orientation should be completely unlocked. This is needed since the
> manifest spec allows overriding the default unlocked orientation. I.e.
> it should be possible to use the
I agree, and it was also a surprise to me when I first noticed that. I
believe Wonsuk might know the history behind that decision.
Kenneth
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 6:44, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote:
> > I am cc'ing Wonsuk and Christo
On March 14, 2014 at 9:58:59 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> > However it does mean that we need to also have a way to define that
> > orientation should be completely unlocked. This is needed since the
> > manifest spec allows
Agreed. "any" sounds the most descriptive.
/ Jonas
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> On March 14, 2014 at 9:58:59 AM, Mounir Lamouri (mou...@lamouri.fr) wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, at 16:09, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> > However it does mean that we need to also have a wa
Great. I applied those changes to the current ED. It might lack a bit of
clarity but I will integrate Promises soon so I will likely revisit the
language later.
-- Mounir
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, at 5:36, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Agreed. "any" sounds the most descriptive.
>
> / Jonas
>
> On Fri, Mar
