Re: GEOPRIV and the W3C Geolocation API

Hi Richard,

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:22 AM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
>>> I'll put my motives up front: I want the W3C Geolocation API to be
>>> compatible with location specifications that GEOPRIV has developed and is
>>> working on.
>>
>> I have no problem with that as so long as it benefits the web, solves a
>> problem we have, and is as simple and elegant as possible.
>
> I certainly agree with those objectives.  Part of what I'm trying to argue
> is that there's appreciable benefit to be had without really any additional
> complexity.
>

I have a question about this: doesn't it seem a little odd to state "I
want your API to be compatible with specification X" as a goal? I'm a
little puzzled as to how this can be a fair goal. Rather, IMHO, the
goal should be to find a reasonable solution to the privacy concerns
that this API raises. Geopriv is just one solution that has been
proposed. The group is considering this solution and we have an
ongoing thread about it:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2008Nov/0015.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2008Nov/0016.html

As you can see, the GeoPriv proponents are still yet to reply to the
latest set of questions. Let me make it clear: if it is concluded that
GeoPriv does solve a real problem, it is technically sound and it does
fit the goals of our APIs, then I have no problem with adopting it.
However, the decision can only be made on technical grounds and not
with arguments such as "if you don't use GeoPriv, privacy will be
ignored". My suggestion is that we should continue the discussion on
the above thread and aim to reach a conclusion once all the evidence
has been produced.

Many thanks,
Andrei

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:31:35 UTC