- From: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 14:46:51 +0100
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi Andrei, On 4. juni. 2009, at 12.49, Andrei Popescu wrote: > I've just updated the editor drafts of the Geolocation API spec: I notice that RFC2119 is not in the bibliography, even though there's a link to it in the spec. > I'd like to take the opportunity to remind you to consider the > question in the following email: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Jun/0000.html > > and express your opinion. I would like to close this issue asap and > move the spec to the next stage. We are already behind schedule. For what it's worth, I am in also favour of not including the additional sentence. For the reasons you mention, but also because prose of the form "this specification doesn't mandate a way to... however one way might be...", although not strictly contradictory, very often leads to confusion. Secondly, the particular time-scoping solution mentioned suggests awkward user interaction, and might influence implementers the wrong way. Max.
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 13:47:40 UTC