[whatwg] Fullscreen Update

[Robert O'Callahan]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:52 AM, James Graham <jgraham at opera.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>> I don't think punting on nested fullscreen is a good idea. It's not some
>> edge case that most applications can't hit. For example, it will come up
>> with any content that can go full-screen and can contain an embedded
>> Youtube video. (It'll come up even more often if browser fullscreen UI is
>> integrated with DOM fullscreen, which we definitely plan to do in
>> Firefox.)
>> If we don't support nested fullscreen well, then the user experience will
>> be either
>> -- making the video fullscreen while the containing content is already
>> fullscreen simply doesn't work, or
>> -- the video can go fullscreen, but when you exit fullscreen on the video,
>> the containing content also loses fullscreen
>> Both of these are clearly broken IMHO.
>>
>
> Presumably the embeded video could detect that it was already in a
> fullscreen environment and deal with it accordingly. So in theory we could
> wait and see if people just do that before deciding that we have to
> implement the more complex thing. But that might be unnecessarily difficult
> and easy to get wrong. So maybe we should just deal with this now.
>

As Glenn said, if you're in a cross-origin IFRAME I don't think you can
"deal with it" (unless you establish a postMessage protocol to work with
your container to deal with it). Even if you could, I think telling authors
to use a pile of boilerplate code to make fullscreen work reliably would
indicate a deficiency in the API if there's a reasonable alternative API
that avoids the problem.

Rob
-- 
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not
sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John
1:8-10]