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

Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:20:53 +0100
Message-ID: <708552fb0906121420g14cd00bcx7877b9cc4c043c7a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Doug Turner<doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:49:12 +0200, Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Richard Barnes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the minimal impact of these changes, and the large possible
>>>>> benefit, I would like to propose that the changes be incorporated into
>>>>> the current draft before last call.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I strongly reject this proposal on the grounds described
>>>> above
>>>> -- that this would dramatically damage the trust users have in user
>>>> agentsand would on the long term lead to a significantly worsened user
>>>> experience in surfing the Web in terms of privacy and security.
>>>
>>> +1. I do not think this should be a part of the Geolocation
>>> specification.
>>
>> Agreed, the outlined approach sounds way too brittle and does not actually
>> give users control.
>
>
>
> I appreciate Richard's work and compromise, but I do not think Geopriv is
> right for the web for the reasons we outlined back in December.
>
> +1.  I do not think that this should be part of the Geolocation
> specification.
>

+1. I fully agree with Ian, Greg, Anne and Doug that the proposed API
extensions should not be part of the Geolocation specification.

Thanks,
Andrei
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 21:21:31 UTC

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