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

Re: moving to Last Call

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:04:09 +0100
Message-ID: <708552fb0906100904jae3689etd6b51887d4cb047@mail.gmail.com>
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

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