W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > June 2009

Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification

From: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:29:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4A2D82B2.1000801@opera.com>
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
CC: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback. It is clear that the
> consensus is to drop the "permission expiry" sentence, so I dropped
> it.
>
> I have therefore updated the spec with the following non-normative section:
>
> //-------------------------------------------------------
> Additional implementation consideration
>
> This section is non-normative
>
> Further to the requirements listed in the previous section,
> implementors of the Geolocation API are also advised to consider the
> following aspects that may negatively affect the privacy of their
> users: in certain cases, users may inadvertently grant permission to
> the User Agent to disclose their location to Web sites. In other
> cases, the content hosted at a certain URL changes in such a way that
> the previously granted location permissions no longer apply as far as
> a user is concerned. Or the users might simply change their mind.
>
> Predicting or preventing these situations is inherently
> difficult. Mitigation and in-depth defensive measures are an
> implementation responsibility and not prescribed by this
> specification. However, in designing these measures, implementers are advised
> to enable user awareness of location sharing, and to provide easy
> access to interfaces that enable revocation of permissions.
> //-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here are the diffs:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/geo/api/spec-source.html.diff?r1=1.58&r2=1.59&f=h
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html.diff?r1=1.15&r2=1.16&f=h
>
> I would now like to kindly ask Angel, Lars Erik and Matt to check if
> we are ready to publish the latest Editor's Draft.
>
> Many thanks,
> Andrei
>   
Hi Andrei,

Yes, we should be able to move to final call now if we have reached 
consensus on the privacy considerations section.
Are there any objections to moving to last call with the current text?

But we also have two open issues that should be closed before we go to 
last call:

ISSUE-6: enableHighAccuracy, "Is enableHighAccuracy the right naming for 
this attribute? Should we have it at all?"
We seemed to have consensus on renaming it, with a few members in favour 
of dropping it completely.
Allan Thomson proposed to replace it with "reducedPowerHint", along with 
a definition:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Apr/0034.html
Is anyone against resolving ISSUE-6 by replacing enableHighAccuracy and 
its definition with Allan's proposal?

ISSUE-7: heading & speed, "Should heading & speed be moved out of the 
Coordinates interface?"
Given that Geolocation API v2 will have support for address, should 
'heading' and 'speed' attributes be moved out of the Coordinates 
interface? They could go to a separate interface (e.g. Velocity) so that 
implementation can return any combination of (coords, velocity, address).

There hasn't really been any discussion on this issue. Are there any 
objections to moving the "heading" and "speed" attributes out of the 
Coordinates interface and into a new Velocity interface?

Thanks,
Lars Erik
Received on Monday, 8 June 2009 21:30:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:56 UTC