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

Hi Allan,

I've added this to the issue tracker for v2, ISSUE-8.

Lars Erik

Allan Thomson (althomso) wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 11 June 2009 07:42:31 UTC