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

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

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:25:08 -0700
Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C72C9302-67A7-4B28-A9B4-2B2B9F18E208@gmail.com>
To: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>

> 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?

I still don't like having this attribute and would be quite content to  
have it just be dropped.  If we don't great agreement on doing that, i  
would be okay with "useLowPower".

> 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?

How about dropping them from V1, and consider them, as a new Velocity  
interface w/ associated option flags, for V2?

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 02:32:10 UTC

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