- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:17:52 +0100
- To: "public-geolocation@w3c.org" <public-geolocation@w3c.org>
- Cc: "Shyam Habarakada" <shyamh@microsoft.com>, "Chris Butler" <cbutler@dash.net>, "Alec Berntson" <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "Chris Prince" <cprince@google.com>, "Aaron Boodman" <aa@google.com>, "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Aza <aza@mozilla.com>
Hello, I have updated the Geolocation API spec with the error codes we have discussed earlier. Due to the fact that it wasn't very clear if timeouts would need to be explicitly handled by this API, I have left that error code out for now. Anyway, since there haven't been any new major controversies lately, I wanted to kindly ask you to have another look at the spec and let me know if you think the API is defined well enough for its first version (i.e. give it a "thumbs up" if you think it's fine). Thanks, Andrei On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Shyam Habarakada wrote: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Doug Turner [mailto:doug.turner@gmail.com] >>> >>> I disagree that we need to or should expose http protocol specific >>> error codes. Otherwise sounds fine. >> >> Hi Doug, >> Would you mind sharing with us your reasoning here? That would give us >> more context. Thanks > > > I see no need to special case one class of geolocation providers by exposing > its specific errors codes. We should hide these implementation details > behind general error codes, or by providing a separate optional interface or > set of attributes. > > Doug >
Received on Friday, 8 August 2008 15:18:34 UTC