- From: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:26:23 -0400
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>
I tried to address the use of the tools in another mail to the WG, so I'd like to just address the privacy portions here. On Mar 26, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> To me this looks like an explicit issue related to the Geopriv >> discussion. I thought we concluded that discussion and are now >> working >> on the wording for the "privacy considerations" sections. Perhaps we >> could close this one (good to track what happened, I agree) and >> open a >> new issue related to finishing that specific task? We can also have a >> generic issue explaining that we are continuing to look for and >> invite >> ideas around solving the user privacy problem in the context of the >> Geolocation API and then link to the two other (and more concrete) >> issues? >> > > Ping. Does anyone object to the above suggestion? I think we should leave this issue open and use it as I intended (rather than as I wrote!). I'll change the body of the issue to say something more generic and point to two new issues. Something like this: [[ We've had proposals from the IETF GeoPriv working group to include a of number privacy related items in the Coordinates object. See <new issue> for details. During the December 2008 F2F we concluded that we would publish without including those items in the Coordinates object, but would include placeholder privacy text. The group is currently working through what the final text should say before publication as Last Call, this is being tracked in issue <new issue 2>. ]] I'll copy most of the text that was clipped from issue-2 to the new GEOPriv privacy issue, and I'll create a new issue for privacy text and link it to the original thread (hmmm, we don't appear to have Doug's original text on the mailing list, only in his blog). This will generate two more mails to the group, so I'll wait a bit for folks to read this before going forward... -M
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 16:26:55 UTC