- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:58:51 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Richard Barnes wrote: > > Adding a field to the API entails no cost for implementers that don't > want to use it -- either on the location provider end or the consumer > end. This is a huge fallacy. Everything we add to the spec has a cost to the Web platform as a whole, in added complexity to the spec, to people writing test suites, to people writing and reading tutorials, to people wanting to know why the feature doesn't work in their browser, to people filing bugs on browser vendors asking for that feature, to people arguing back and forth about the feature not being implemented despite it being in a spec, and so forth. Personally I think we shouldn't confuse an address API with a position API. They are different, have different use cases, needs, and requirements, and are important to different people. I would recommend creating a new draft to handle addresses if there are problems that aren't addressed by a position API that an address API would handle. I really don't think we should merge the two. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 23:59:26 UTC