- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:04:29 +0100
- To: "public-geolocation@w3c.org" <public-geolocation@w3c.org>
Hello, I have updated the Geolocation API editor draft by adding a skeleton of the actual API: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html I'd be very happy to receive some feedback on it. Here is a summary of the issues that have been raised so far on the geolocation mailing list and how I have addressed them: * The new geolocation object should be a property of the navigator object. Resolution: It seems that most people were in favor of placing the geolocation object as a property of navigator so I accepted this. I also added a note regarding the possible relocation to the window object since, in practice, it could save developers time by not forcing them to type "navigator.geolocation". * It may be better to allow two separate callbacks, one for success and another for error scenarios Resolution: Agreed, added to the draft. * There should be a separate Error object that should provide separate attributes for a numeric error code and a literal error message. Resolution: Agreed, added to the draft. * PositionOptions should support the concept of a max-age when returning cached Position data Resolution: Not included. As discussed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2008Jun/0061.html , the desired behavior can be achieved by using the lastPosition attribute. * Renaming various interfaces / methods and properties of the API Resolution: I considered all the names that were proposed and, on the whole, I think that what is now in the draft spec seems like the best choice. If there are any technical reasons why another name might be better, please do let me know. * Using navigator.geolocation.onchange event model, instead of the current callback mechanism. Resolution: Not included. As discussed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2008Jun/0034.html, this would limit the number of position listeners / monitors that an application could use. Since the current model does not have this limitation, I have not included this suggestion in the current draft. * The specification should define a non-normative protocol between a network location provider and the user agent. Resolution: Tend to agree, to be done in the next version of the draft. * The Geolocation API should provide synchronous operation Resolution: Not included. Acquiring a location fix may take a relatively long time (e.g. warming up the GPS device, reaching the network location provider) so a synchronous operation would block the UA for the entire period, which does not seem optimal. * Instead of callbacks, the Geolocation API should use DOM Events. Resolution: Not included. I considered this and examined how using DOM Events would impact the API and my conclusion is that using callbacks will lead to a nicer API. Here is why: - It isn't really clear how DOM Events would actually work with getCurrentPosition() or watchPosition(). These methods must allow an application to pass a PositionOptions object that determines how the Position is acquired. - The callbacks are not a novel notification mechanism as they have been used by methods like setTimeout() or interfaces such as HTML5 Database. Many thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 22:05:08 UTC