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 11:05:15 -0700
Message-ID: <18B307BFDE5098438B0BF42A4E508FB5089AC778@xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com>
To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
Cc: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Greg Bolsinga" <bolsinga@apple.com>, "Lars Erik Bolstad" <lbolstad@opera.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
And I thought we reached an agreement on the updated text and name. None
of which have been adopted.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Popescu [mailto:andreip@google.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:02 AM
To: Allan Thomson (althomso)
Cc: Doug Turner; Greg Bolsinga; Lars Erik Bolstad; public-geolocation
Subject: Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Allan Thomson
(althomso)<althomso@cisco.com> wrote:
> Doug - No one is suggesting we write specs that are out-of-date or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
> "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.

We have both implementations and applications that use the attribute.
I also recall a lengthy discussion about it on this list, with plenty
of use cases and technical reasons.

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 18:05:54 UTC

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