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

Re: ISSUE-10 Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:20:47 +0200
To: "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
Cc: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Geolocation Working Group WG" <public-geolocation@w3.org>, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uvqn8e2h64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:06:51 +0200, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
> Tell me why it is expensive to ignore an optional attribute?

Having optional attributes in the specification that are not expected to be implemented does not make sense. It will just confuse authors and likewise new implementors who have not been participating in the WG. It is also not clear how we would exit CR with an optional feature that is not actually implemented (the suggestion you gave does not guarantee that policy can actually be implemented in an interoperable way). If the attribute is intended for a specific group it should be done as a separate effort.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2009 21:28:04 UTC

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