- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:06:06 -0800
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
On Nov 13, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>
> Richard Barnes wrote:
>> So I would be much more comfortable if a geodetic location were
>> optional (at least in v2), since there are deployments were it
>> would be detrimental (inaccurate and unnecessarily complex) to add
>> geodetic location. I'm not sure how do go from a geodetic-only API
>> to one where geodetic is optional in a backwards-compatible fashion.
>
> my proposal would be to solve this by creating a more comprehensive
> API and model of location, which optionally may point to a lat/long
> API, if that is a kind of location that is required and available in
> a scenario. assuming that the lat/long API itself might evolve into
> a more general location API would require it to add so many
> constraints to it (such as almost everything in version 1 would have
> to be treated as optional), that in my opinion it would be unlikely
> that it actually would be implemented correctly. which would mean
> that you would end up with v1 APIs not behaving correctly and thus
> breaking v2 code.
>
> going for the low-hanging fruit is a good strategy, but i think it
> is important to realize that there are many more available, and we
> should be careful to not negatively impact the ability to get those
> fruit a little later...
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
I am thinking along the lines of adding additional options to the
PositionOptions to request addtional geolocation information from any
backend provider. For example, if you want to get a civic address,
you would do something like (hand waving):
var options = {
additional_options = "address";
};
function a(pos) {
var address = pos.options("address");
alert(address.zipcode);
}
navigator.geolocation.watchPosition(a, b, options);
I know the names of the attributes are not right, but I hope you get
the idea. it would allow the extensiblity required for v2 and address
the concerns about "dropping geopriv info".
Thoughts?
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 20:06:45 UTC