- From: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 12:58:29 +0200
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- CC: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Andrei Popescu wrote: > Hi Lars, > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Lars Erik Bolstad<lbolstad@opera.com> wrote: > >> 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? >> >> > > Given we're about to have a lot of shipped implementations (iPhone, > Firefox, Chrome/Android/Gears, Iris, and others), I would like to > propose we keep the spec as it is and move these issues to V2. Since > we're talking about renaming a boolean and moving two attributes to a > new interface, I think we can safely live with what we have and avoid > making all these implementations incompatible from the day they come > out. I realize this is a risk they took when they decided to implement > a draft, but in this case I don't think the two issues are important > enough to justify a compatibility break. > > Thanks, > Andrei > I agree. And you can add Opera to that list, btw :-) Lars Erik
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 10:59:13 UTC