- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:54:19 -0400
- To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Max Froumentin 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. > >> 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. +1 drop this from the spec. Doug
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 14:55:44 UTC