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

Re: api comments

From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:54:07 -0400
Message-ID: <49D258BF.5020405@bbn.com>
To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
CC: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Allan Thomson (althomso)" <althomso@cisco.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
FWIW, there's currently a proposal in GEOPRIV to include these 
attributes in an XML location object as a separate <dynamic> element:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-singh-geopriv-pidf-lo-dynamic>
Ignoring all the XML and GML ugliness, it's got mostly the same 
attributes as the current dynamic stuff in the current draft API 
(actually, a superset).

So you could split off the dynamic part as an independent collection of 
attributes:

interface Position {
     readonly attribute Coordinates coords;
     readonly attribute CivicAddress civic;
     readonly attribute DynamicAttributes dynamic;
     readonly attribute DOMTimeStamp timestamp;
};

interface DynamicAttributes {
     readonly attribute double heading; // Degrees; horizontal only
     readonly attribute double horizontalOrientation; // Degrees
     readonly attribute double verticalOrientation; // Degrees
     readonly attribute double speed; // m/s
     readonly attribute double acceleration; // m/s/s
}

--Richard



Doug Turner wrote:
> Drop it all together?
> 
> 
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 5:31 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> 
>> Strictly speaking, you are right: it should be decoupled from the
>> Coordinates interface. How would you name this new interface?
>> Velocity? In practice, I suspect that velocity can only be provided by
>> implementations that can also provide geospatial coords.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 17:54:52 UTC

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