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

Re: Wording

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:23:46 +0100
Message-ID: <708552fb0809081623p3641aca2j2f8cd18896aad19@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alec Berntson" <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi Alec,

Sorry for the late reply, I've just returned from holiday. I will update the
spec and ping the mailing list.

Andrei

2008/8/29 Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>:
> Hi Andrei,
> I agree with the behavior, I was just confused by the wording. The 2nd
step makes it seem like the API is redoing step 1 and then listening - maybe
if you just reordered the sentence like this:
>
> 2.) Invoke the appropriate callback with a new Position object every time
the implementation determines that the position of the hosting device has
changed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Popescu [mailto:andreip@google.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 11:33 PM
> To: Alec Berntson
> Cc: public-geolocation@w3.org
> Subject: Re:
>
> Hi Alec,
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:04 AM, Alec Berntson
> <alecb@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Andrei,
>>
>>   After looking at the geolocation API spec more closely, I was hoping we
>> could clarify the watchPosition() process. Does the 2 step flow below
imply
>> the watchPosition() first fires a 'single shot' request to get the
current
>> location, and then listens to updates?
>
> Yes, the idea is that watchPosition() must tell the caller what is the
> user's current position and then must notify the caller again every
> time the user's position changes (what constitutes a change is not
> currently specified and is left to the implementation to decide).
>
>>
>> The watchPosition() takes one, two or three arguments. When called, it
must
>> immediately return and then asynchronously start a watch process defined
as
>> the following set of steps:
>>
>> Acquire a new Position object. If successful, invoke the associated
>> successCallback with a Position object as an argument. If the attempt
fails,
>> and the method was invoked with a non-null errorCallback argument, this
>> method must invoke the errorCallback with a PositionError object as an
>> argument.
>
> This effectively says that the implementation must first call back
> with the current position.
>
>> Acquire a new Position object and invoke the appropriate callback every
time
>> the implementation determines that the position of the hosting device has
>> changed.
>>
>
> This says that the implementation must call back every time the
> position changes.
>
> First of all, do you agree with this behavior? If so, I can try to
> re-word this paragraph to make it more clear. Suggestions are always
> welcome :)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Andrei
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 23:24:28 GMT

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