- From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:06:54 -0700
- To: "Lars Erik Bolstad" <lbolstad@opera.com>
- Cc: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Thanks Lars - I had a raised an issue that the fields in the current set of civic fields are insufficient to represent indoor location. For example, to represent a position within a floor such as a mall, airport, multi-floor building...etc. Would you prefer a separate issue for this? allan -----Original Message----- From: Lars Erik Bolstad [mailto:lbolstad@opera.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 11:51 PM To: Allan Thomson (althomso) Cc: Doug Turner; Andrei Popescu; public-geolocation Subject: Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification Hi Allan, Civic addresses are proposed for "version 2" of the spec: http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html Lars Erik Allan Thomson (althomso) wrote: > > According the open issues list there are 3 issues. > > Issue 3 - exposing civic addresses is not yet resolved to my knowledge. > > I'm interested in the resolution to this issue. If there is a > resolution please point me to it so that I can review and agree/disagree. > > thanks > > Allan Thomson > > Cisco Systems > > *From:* public-geolocation-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug Turner > *Sent:* Monday, June 08, 2009 7:25 PM > *To:* Lars Erik Bolstad > *Cc:* Andrei Popescu; public-geolocation > *Subject:* Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification > > > > 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? > > Doug >
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 14:07:40 UTC