- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:04:09 +0100
- To: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
+Matt Womer Good question, but I don't know the answer. I think those sentences will be removed when the document is published but Matt is in a better position to answer. Thanks, Andrei On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Alissa Cooper<acooper@cdt.org> wrote: > A question on process: the spec currently says things like, "Implementors > who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the > specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways" and "This > is just an informal proposal at this time." Do those stay in for last call? > The latter statement in particular is bordering on fallacious considering > that all the UAs in the group have already implemented the spec. > > On Jun 10, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On topic of moving issues 6 and 7 (renaming 'enableHighAccuracy' & >> moving the 'speed' and 'heading' attributes) to v2 and keeping v1 in >> sync with reality (i.e. shipped implementations), I have seen >> opposition from Allen and Richard. Everyone else who replied seemed to >> be ok with keeping the spec as is. I have therefore moved those two >> issues to V2 and added a note about the reasoning. I think we can now >> move to Last Call? >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/6 >> http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/7 >> >> Many thanks, >> Andrei >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 16:04:44 UTC