Philip Jägenstedt
unread,Mar 16, 2015, 10:42:28 PM3/16/15Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ali Alabbas, Julien Chaffraix, PhistucK, Matt Falkenhagen, Jochen Eisinger, Jacob Rossi, blin...@chromium.org, Israel Hilerio
Oops, I linked to the wrong bug, this is the "Unprefix the Fullscreen
API" tracking bug:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=383813
The plan is to work through the blocking bugs and then ship the
unprefixed Fullscreen API, but I dare not suggest a date for shipping.
I hope that the only difference between the prefixed and unprefixed
API will be the events. Unfortunately this isn't limited to the name
of the events, the prefixed events are also fired at the element
instead of the document, and they bubble.
I'm not sure whether or not shipping should be blocked on the top layer rewrite:
https://codereview.chromium.org/788073004/
Without it we can't support the :fullscreen::backdrop bit of the
Fullscreen UA style sheet, but it's proven hard to fix so far.
Once we manage to ship the unprefixed Fullscreen API, trying to get
rid of the prefixed one will be a lot of work too. If the event target
turns out to be a big part of the problem, we should consider changing
the spec instead I think.
Philip
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Ali Alabbas <
al...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> What is the plan for implementing unprefixed fullscreenElement? Also, will
> you be changing the behavior of webkitFullscreenElement? Developers
> currently follow the pattern of checking for the unprefixed Fullscreen API
> and using the prefixed version if it is unavailable. Having different
> behavior between the two will cause inconsistency when checking for the
> fullscreen element right after the fullscreen request is made.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ali