- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:00:13 +0100
- To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com> wrote: > 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. > Good point, fixed. >> 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. > I agree 100%. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:00:50 UTC