- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:41:12 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Ingmar.Kliche@telekom.de, public-device-apis@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Robin Berjon wrote: >> >> The reason I'm interested in looking at (2) is because I'm concerned >> that we may be trying to pile too much onto <input> — we could, after >> all, have had <input type='location'>. If the geolocation model works, >> we should build on it. This doesn't prevent the <input>-based access — >> in fact for the capture API I like it very much because it makes a lot >> of sense semantically here. We can do both — so long as we build on >> existing models I feel rather safe that we're not doing weird stuff and >> that we're benefitting from improvements that can be made to other parts >> of the stack that rely on these approaches. > > We tried <input type=location> before using an async API. It wasn't quite > the right fit for various reasons (in particular, it's not clear what the > user interaction would be -- there's no location to select, generally, > it's just a recurring event when the user moved). > That's right. I explained the design decision behind the async API here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/0076.html Andrei
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 12:41:52 UTC