- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:14:06 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Erik Wilde wrote: >> aren't we in a discussion about what people have as use cases and >> scenarios for that API and what it should support? > No, we're months past that discussion. fair enough. but in that case instead of arguing that not supporting non-lat/long positions is not a problem because it is not really necessary, it might waste less time of everybody involved to just say "we're not doing it because we're not doing it" (maybe with a pointer to the mail archive where the final decision is announced). > Instead of arguing over and over about whether Geolocation v1 should have > this, the people who want addresses in an API should write a separate > specification optimised for those use cases. actually i think it would be great to start work on a location API and have the geodetic/geoposition API as one specialized location provider for that API. that would allow the lat/long work to progress smoothly, and it also would make sure that there is a more comprehensive way of dealing with location for those who need it. cheers, dret.
Received on Friday, 14 November 2008 00:15:01 UTC