Re: Forward/backward compatibility

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Erik Wilde wrote:
>> aren't we in a discussion about what people have as use cases and 
>> scenarios for that API and what it should support?
> No, we're months past that discussion.

fair enough. but in that case instead of arguing that not supporting 
non-lat/long positions is not a problem because it is not really 
necessary, it might waste less time of everybody involved to just say 
"we're not doing it because we're not doing it" (maybe with a pointer to 
the mail archive where the final decision is announced).

> Instead of arguing over and over about whether Geolocation v1 should have 
> this, the people who want addresses in an API should write a separate 
> specification optimised for those use cases.

actually i think it would be great to start work on a location API and 
have the geodetic/geoposition API as one specialized location provider 
for that API. that would allow the lat/long work to progress smoothly, 
and it also would make sure that there is a more comprehensive way of 
dealing with location for those who need it.

cheers,

dret.