On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Robin Berjon wrote: > > The reason I'm interested in looking at (2) is because I'm concerned > that we may be trying to pile too much onto <input> — we could, after > all, have had <input type='location'>. If the geolocation model works, > we should build on it. This doesn't prevent the <input>-based access — > in fact for the capture API I like it very much because it makes a lot > of sense semantically here. We can do both — so long as we build on > existing models I feel rather safe that we're not doing weird stuff and > that we're benefitting from improvements that can be made to other parts > of the stack that rely on these approaches. We tried <input type=location> before using an async API. It wasn't quite the right fit for various reasons (in particular, it's not clear what the user interaction would be -- there's no location to select, generally, it's just a recurring event when the user moved). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 05:30:41 UTC