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

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

From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:06:54 -0700
Message-ID: <18B307BFDE5098438B0BF42A4E508FB5089AC5CE@xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com>
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

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