Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update the data for ScreenOrientation #2698

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Sep 6, 2018
Merged

Update the data for ScreenOrientation #2698

merged 3 commits into from Sep 6, 2018

Conversation

stof
Copy link
Contributor

@stof stof commented Aug 30, 2018

https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/catalog/?q=specName%3Ascreen-orientation tells me that firefox supports all the subfeatures while https://caniuse.com/#feat=screen-orientation tells me that Firefox supports this API since version 44. I assumed that all subfeatures shipped in this version, because I was not able to find the correspond bugzilla ticket.
https://platform-status.mozilla.org/#screen-orientation marks it as shipped in Firefox 15, but that refers to an older version of the spec, which did not had the ScreenOrientation object (but methods on Screen instead)

Due to not finding the bugzilla issues related to this, I was not able to fill the firefox_android column (caniuse only provides info about the latest version of this browser, which seems to support it though)

@stof stof changed the title Add the firefox status for ScreenOrientation Update the data for ScreenOrientation Aug 30, 2018
@Elchi3 Elchi3 added the data:api 🐇 Compat data for Web APIs. https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API label Aug 30, 2018
Copy link
Member

@Elchi3 Elchi3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your PR and welcome to mdn-browser-compat-data!

I don't know why caniuse puts 44 for Firefox.
These sources say 43:

So, I would suggest to go with 43 for Firefox.

@Elchi3
Copy link
Member

Elchi3 commented Sep 6, 2018

Oh, and usually the Firefoxes match, so 43 for firefox_android, too.

@stof
Copy link
Contributor Author

stof commented Sep 6, 2018

@Elchi3 I updated the version to 43 for Firefox, and I added it for Android too.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/zyGP6PemJlg/discussion says that only FirefoxOS and Firefox for Android support locking the orientation. I'm wondering how this impact the support table for lock and unlock. does Firefox Desktop support them, but always reject the locking promise ? And if this is the case, how should this appear in the compat table ?

@Elchi3
Copy link
Member

Elchi3 commented Sep 6, 2018

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.platform/zyGP6PemJlg/discussion says that only FirefoxOS and Firefox for Android support locking the orientation. I'm wondering how this impact the support table for lock and unlock. does Firefox Desktop support them, but always reject the locking promise ? And if this is the case, how should this appear in the compat table ?

I don't know the answer to this. I think we can go with version 43 for them for now, too (until we find out otherwise).

@Elchi3 Elchi3 merged commit a02d423 into mdn:master Sep 6, 2018
@stof stof deleted the patch-1 branch September 6, 2018 16:17
@stof
Copy link
Contributor Author

stof commented Sep 6, 2018

I tested the behavior in my console, and Firefox Desktop indeed rejects the promise when being asked to lock (which is totally spec-compliant: https://w3c.github.io/screen-orientation/#dfn-apply-an-orientation-lock).
The question is whether BCD should include some info about whether browsers support locking orientation or no.

@Elchi3
Copy link
Member

Elchi3 commented Sep 6, 2018

Maybe we could add a note to these methods for the relevant browsers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
data:api 🐇 Compat data for Web APIs. https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants