W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2009

Re: ISSUE-10 Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:32:53 -0700
Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Message-Id: <698BE763-70A9-4E33-A9AA-FC4E72D0F9C5@gmail.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> 
Rigo,

Same horse.  I do hope that you go back to the IRC logs of the f2f,  
and the email threads over the last 8 months.  I listed about 8  
reasons why (specially) geopriv was a bad idea for the web.  This  
optional attribute smells alot like the same idea.

Henning,

railroaded?  really?  I think we had just about every major UA say  
that this was a bad idea -- based on decades of experience.  I would  
think that browser hackers are the ones being railroaded if anyone!

Doug Turner
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 21:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:13:32 GMT