- From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:11:12 -0700
- To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
In an attempt to reach a compromise I suggest the following attribute name and definition. <<<<< Name: reducedPowerHint Definition: The caller indicates that it is willing to accept reduced location fidelity in preference to improved power savings and instructs the API implementation to reduce power consumption wherever possible. The API implementation should interpret this attribute as a hint to algorithms and implementations that decide how best to provide location resolution and may choose which methods provide the best result. >>>>>> Although this might be very similar to what the definition is today, it is written in a way that that at least is acceptable to me. Do others agree? Allan -----Original Message----- From: Andrei Popescu [mailto:andreip@google.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 7:58 AM To: Allan Thomson (althomso) Cc: Angel Machín; public-geolocation Subject: Re: renaming enableHighAccuracy Hi Allan, On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com> wrote: > All - Being new to this group I would like to understand the rules for how disagreement is supposed to be resolved. I think we have clear disagreement here and despite my best attempt to understand how this attribute provides value I still don't see it. > Well, first of all I think we should finish the discussion. Do you have further counter-arguments to my arguments? What exactly is it that makes you think this attribute is worthless? Thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 15:12:23 UTC