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

Doug - No one is suggesting we write specs that are out-of-date or
irrelevant to the needs of our customers.

To that point, my original concern around the semantics and usage of the
"enableHighAccuracy" attribute still remain and the response to those
objections seems to be "we already have it so it's ok". That I believe
is the wrong reason to reject the concerns. A more valid technical
reason to reject my concerns should be presented by the proponents of
this attribute.

If the definition of this attribute was unambiguous and well-defined
then there would be no problem adopting it from current working
implementations.

Allan

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Turner [mailto:doug.turner@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Allan Thomson (althomso)
Cc: Greg Bolsinga; Lars Erik Bolstad; Andrei Popescu; public-geolocation
Subject: Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification


On Jun 8, 2009, at 10:19 PM, Allan Thomson (althomso) wrote:

>
>>> FWIW, iPhone 3.0 announced today (and out June 17) will support both
> of these names.
>
> ... and that is relevant to this specification how?

ouch.  allan, he prefixed this statement with "FWIW" to avoid such  
responses.  Anyhow, if we do not consider what browsers are currently  
doing, we are doomed to write specs that are out-of-touch.

FWIW, Firefox 3.5 announced a long time ago will support both of these  
names as well!

Doug

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 17:56:16 UTC