Fullscreen & Pointer Lock (status)

[Si Robertson]

Hi guys,

Just wondering when (a) the Fullscreen API and the Pointer Lock API will be unprefixed in Chrome, and (b) when the various webkit implementations in currently in Chrome will be cleaned up (i.e. when will the redundant *FullScreen bits be removed).

As far as the Fullscreen API implementation goes, things are looking very stable now.

http://www.w3.org/TR/fullscreen/

http://www.chromestatus.com/features/5259513871466496

The Pointer Lock API is now a candidate recommendation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerlock/

http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6753200417800192

Here is the usage state for the FullScreen API, I can't find the Pointer Lock one anywhere.

#PrefixedElementRequestFullScreen

Is there any reason why unprefixed versions of these APIs haven't made their way into Chrome yet?

Thanks :-)

 

[Vincent Scheib]

For pointer lock:

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi guys,

Just wondering when (a) the Fullscreen API and the Pointer Lock API will be unprefixed in Chrome, and (b) when the various webkit implementations in currently in Chrome will be cleaned up (i.e. when will the redundant *FullScreen bits be removed).

As far as the Fullscreen API implementation goes, things are looking very stable now.

http://www.w3.org/TR/fullscreen/

http://www.chromestatus.com/features/5259513871466496

The Pointer Lock API is now a candidate recommendation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/pointerlock/

http://www.chromestatus.com/features/6753200417800192

Indeed - I've got "make an intent to implement and ship unprefixed pointer lock" high on my todo list.

 

Here is the usage state for the FullScreen API, I can't find the Pointer Lock one anywhere.

#PrefixedElementRequestFullScreen

I recently landed a measurement for prefixed pointer lock.

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/fullscreen/

http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ please... W3C is way out of date on details.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

[Si Robertson]

Some of the docs are, but at least in this case the W3 docs show how stable the API is considering nothing has changed since mid 2012 :-)

[Rik Cabanier]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/fullscreen/

http://fullscreen.spec.whatwg.org/ please... W3C is way out of date on details.

Apart from the style and calling out 2 event handlers in the IDL, are there any changes? The normative sections look identical.

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of the docs are, but at least in this case the W3 docs show how stable
> the API is considering nothing has changed since mid 2012 :-)

Right, and that is false. The W3C copying work of others causes
nothing but such confusion.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

[Si Robertson]

No disrespect but I personally prefer to follow the WC3 rather than a splinter group. Most of the new and emerging APIs are covered by the W3C.

[Si Robertson]

No disrespect but I personally prefer to follow the WC3 rather than a splinter group. Most of the new and emerging APIs are covered by the W3C.

[Si Robertson]

*WC3* being a typo, obviously :-)

[Torne (Richard Coles)]

You can "personally" follow whatever you like, but if you're commenting on this list then you should use the same references that are used for Blink development (the purpose of this list), and set aside your personal preferences.

[Si Robertson]

How are people (outsiders) supposed to know which references are being used for Blink development?

I asked a question regarding two APIs that are available in Blink and I made the mistake of linking to the "wrong" Fullscreen API spec, I didn't link to the wrong spec intentionally. Anyway, considering the specs are exactly the same this shouldn't be an issue and it shouldn't have been flagged as one.

[Torne (Richard Coles)]

On 15 April 2014 16:27, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:

How are people (outsiders) supposed to know which references are being used for Blink development?

I asked a question regarding two APIs that are available in Blink and I made the mistake of linking to the "wrong" Fullscreen API spec, I didn't link to the wrong spec intentionally.

Nobody said you did; you're the one arguing after you were told what the right reference is.

[Si Robertson]

I'm certainly not arguing, this was simply a misunderstanding on my part. The roles played by the W3C and WHATWG have been explained to me clearly now and I will link to the WHATWG documentation in the future.

Thanks for your time, everyone, and I apologize for pushing this conversation off-topic.

[Glenn Adams]

There is not a consensus on this point. Those of us who have been involved in the W3C and other SDOs (Standards Development Organizations) for a long time tend to recognize only W3C documents; others who don't have that history tend to prefer the WHATWG.

There is no correct answer. Only opinions.

 

--
http://annevankesteren.nl/

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.

[Elliott Sprehn]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:

[...]

On 15 April 2014 15:45, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Si Robertson <retrom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some of the docs are, but at least in this case the W3 docs show how stable
> the API is considering nothing has changed since mid 2012 :-)

Right, and that is false. The W3C copying work of others causes
nothing but such confusion.

There is not a consensus on this point. Those of us who have been involved in the W3C and other SDOs (Standards Development Organizations) for a long time tend to recognize only W3C documents; others who don't have that history tend to prefer the WHATWG.

There is no correct answer. Only opinions.

 

Note that blink does favor living standards as they have many advantages over the versioned spec and last call process.

- E

[Domenic Denicola]

I think Si's point, which is a good one, is to ask where this preference is documented. For example, Servo clearly documents their similar preference at https://github.com/mozilla/servo/wiki/Relevant-spec-links. Does Blink have a similar policy on their wiki or similar?

[Glenn Adams]

It is worth noting that the WHATWG documents suffer from problems as well:

• their IPR status is indeterminate
• they do not follow a consensus process
• they do not have a wide spread industry commitment
• they are not recognized by most other SDOs
• being "living" there is no fixed version to test against

IMO, due diligence would suggest consideration be given to both W3C and WHATWG versions of the "same|similar" technical specifications, and a judgment will have to be rendered when there are differences.

For citation purposes, it would be useful to cite both and call out any significant technical differences.

[Matt Falkenhagen]

Regarding Fullscreen, I was hoping to implement the "top layer" concept in the latest spec, which affects behavior like positioning, sizing, and ::backdrop, and make that change simultaneously with unprefixing. See the previous thread here: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/iElkfxDU7d4/3gsk0R3shUMJ

Unfortunately, my patch to do that got tied up in plugin trickery and I'm no longer actively working on it. See https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=240576 for details.

[rosa maria palacios juncosa]