W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2008

Re: skeleton Geolocation API

From: Chris Prince <cprince@google.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:11:20 -0700
Message-ID: <cd580da00806261511s46e97f9ege5bcaf748dad3c83@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Cc: "Aaron Boodman" <aa@google.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, timeless@gmail.com, public-geolocation@w3c.org, "Nick Brachet" <nbrachet@skyhookwireless.com>

Wouldn't this mean that, effectively, sites can never simply have:
    // [code that uses lastPosition]

And instead, every site would need to include:
    if (lastPosition) {
      // [code that uses lastPosition]
    } else {
      getPosition()
      // asynchronously call [code that uses lastPosition]
    }


On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the lastPosition attribute, I have gotten some feedback from UX people
>>> that dialog a modal permission dialog for this synchronous API is not
>>> ideal.
>>> I hate to do this, but could we work through the use case for this again.
>>> Is it simply to avoid the cost of an asynchronous callback?
>>
>> Yes, it is to be able to show something immediately in the case where
>> you have an old value from a previous call to the API.
>>
>> Perhaps the implementation could just return null in the case where
>> permission has not been granted to that origin yet?
>
>
> That means it will only return an non-null position if the system has a
> location available, and permission has been granted (and remembered)
> previously?
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 22:12:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:39 GMT