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

RE: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft

From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:18:12 -0700
Message-ID: <18B307BFDE5098438B0BF42A4E508FB508156B85@xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com>
To: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Cc: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Ok - it will take time to do so. Will get the comments converted
hopefully later today.

Regards

allan

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Turner [mailto:doug.turner@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:12 AM
To: Allan Thomson (althomso)
Cc: Andrei Popescu; public-geolocation
Subject: Re: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft

Hi Allan,

It is pretty hard to respond to your comments, Allan.  Is there a way  
you could translate your edits in MS Word into something that the  
mailing list can digest and respond to?  Even if you just copy the  
comments out of the DOC file, number them, and post them here.

Doug


On Mar 30, 2009, at 8:59 AM, Allan Thomson (althomso) wrote:

> Andrei - Thanks for putting this document together.
>
> I have many comments on this draft document and rather than posting
> individual comments without context I've added my comments to a single
> Word document at the relevant sections. It is attached.
>
> Let me know if you have a problem with this style of comment posting.
>
> Regards
>
> Allan Thomson
> Cisco Systems
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:50 AM
> To: public-geolocation
> Subject: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft
>
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded the first editor's draft for the Geolocation API v2
> (or level 2):
>
> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html
>
> The main change is the addition of the Address interface. Following
> the evidence presented in the thread at
>
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Feb/0000.html
>
> I concluded that the scheme based on a simplified RFC4119 is the best
> choice so far. It is also reasonably close to the proposal made by
> Alec Berntson.
>
> One thing we have not discussed is the extension to the
> PositionOptions interface. Alec proposed something similar to the
> following:
>
> interface PositionOptions {
>  (...)
>  const unsigned short COORDS_REQUIRED = 0;  // default
>  const unsigned short ADDRESS_REQUIRED = 1;
>  const unsigned short EITHER = 2;
>  readonly unsigned short positionType;
> }
>
> Where:
>
> COORDS_ONLY = The API only returns position objects when coords has
> data, address can be null
> ADDRESS_ONLY = The API only returns position objects when address has
> data, coords can be null
> EITHER = The API returns a position object whenever there is data for
> either address or coords data.
>
> Should we also have BOTH_REQUIRED as a fourth option?
>
> Thanks,
> Andrei
>
> <Geolocation API Level 2 Specification.doc>
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 16:20:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC