- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:05:26 -0800
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Any thoughts on supporting geopriv address objects and privacy via
position options:
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:06 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>
> 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 Monday, 24 November 2008 20:06:04 UTC