On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:35 AM, Rich Tibbett <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm not arguing that we remove the relative angle that's in the spec >>> right now. I'm arguing that for device orientation events, we should >>> provide coordinates relative to the screen as well. >> >> This topic was filed as an issue against the DeviceOrientation spec in >> March (https://github.com/w3c/deviceorientation/issues/4). >> >> Interest from implementers is a strong indicator to proceed with such >> spec additions. Active implementer engagement around spec >> clarifications and additions is quite low right now. > > Cool, if we can have this added to an updated DeviceOrientation spec > then that's definitely the best solution here. > > Though the issue above seems to suggest that the spec would define > that the existing alpha/beta/gamma properties would be redefined to be > screen-relative rather than device relative. Is that really going to > be web compatible? > > I don't think mozilla would feel comfortable leading with such a > change given our limited influence for mobile content. But if browsers > with bigger mobile marketshare make such a change we'd definitely > follow. Do you have any indication that there's interest in that? > > A safer option seems to be to introduce > screenAlpha/screenBeta/screenGamma (or something similarly named) and > make those relative to the screen.
Sounds good to me. > That is something that I'm fairly sure I can make happen in Gecko. OK. I believe we could implement these properties in Chromium based on this intent (pending following the correct process there of course). Do you have any thoughts on providing screen-adjusted devicemotion event data also (i.e. acceleration, accelerationIncludingGravity, rotationRate) or do you plan to just stick to providing screen-adjusted deviceorientation event data for now? - Rich > > / Jonas
