Re: Managing Errata for Geo v1

Thanks Dom,

after reading a bit about WebIDL, I do have some comments. I expect an
expert could further clarify though.

As previously discussed, the Coordinates interface is an attribute of
Position, so cannot be a dictionary.

The Position interface could not change to being a dictionary without
changing semantics, as all its members would become optional.

My understanding of current recommended practice is to omit
[NoInterfaceObject] (nearly) everywhere. This allows for feature detection,
and is not without precedent e.g. window.Window and window.Screen. However,
it seems unnecessary to me to litter the global namespace that way, so it's
worth checking with the WebIDL folks.

Regards,

Michael






On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> As Ms2ger reminded us, there are a number of bugs in the Geolocation
> Recommendation that ought to be fixed.
>
> I went through Ms2ger's initial report [1] to check which of the bugs
> (s)he reported still apply, and populated a draft errata page out of
> this (attached).
>
> I would appreciate if the group could review this list of errata and
> confirm that the proposed changes are reasonable corrections to this
> bug, and suggest new ones where they are missing.
>
> Once we have an agreed set of errata and proposed correction, I will
> update the errata page accordingly.
> http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/geoapi-errata.html
>
> We will then need to figure whether we want to through a Proposed Edited
> Recommendation (PER) process [2] with these, or if we expect the new API
> proposed in the draft charter to replace the existing one; even in the
> latter case, it may make sense to go through PER given that v2 might
> take a while before being finished.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dom
>
> 1.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2012Jan/0001.html
> 2. http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr-edited
>