On 08/02/13 17:53, Chundong Wang wrote:
> Hello - Got a question of screen orientation on portrait/landscape.
>
> Let's say we have a device doesn't support portrait-secondary, by
> spec<http://www.w3.org/TR/screen-orientation/> we should remove it from allow
> list which is fine. However if web developer specified "portrait" instead of
> "portrait-primary" for lockOrientation(), which I suppose is a common case,
> we'll have to expand it to "portrait-primary, portrait-secondary" according
> spec. In this case the lockOrientation() would fail because orientations
> isn't a supported orientation set. I don't think it'll satisfy the original
> purpose of "portrait".
>
> IMHO, we should explain this more detailed. We could either,
>
> 1. Only expand "portrait"(or "landscape") into allowed orientations, or;
>
> 2. Filter out disallowed orientations from orientation sequence and
> lock the screen with that list.
Thank you for your feedback, it is quite interesting. I went with the
first solution you proposed. The only down-side with that solution is
that lockOrientation("portrait") would no longer be exactly like
lockOrientation(["portrait-primary", "portrait-secondary"]) but I guess
this is better for developers who don't care which portrait orientation
are allowed exactly. I am assuming that someone using the explicit form
might want to know if that failed and wouldn't prefer a half-working
lock without notification.
You can view the updated document here :
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/screen-orientation/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
By the way, this specification is being worked on in the WebApps WG so
posting in the webapps mailing-list would have been better ;)
Cheers,
--
Mounir
