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

RE: renaming enableHighAccuracy

From: Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:54:06 -0500
Message-ID: <E51D5B15BFDEFD448F90BDD17D41CFF105967DB7@AHQEX1.andrew.com>
To: "Taqi Jaffri" <tjaffri@microsoft.com>, "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
Cc: "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
What about location providers that have other associated costs?  Power is a significant one, but (and this is largely speculation) what about those that have associated monetary costs?

Maybe "lowCostOnly".

Aside from that, I have no objection to the change - using a Boolean for "high accuracy" is no good because there is no common understanding of what it means.  Of course, a low power Boolean suffers from similar problems, but it's probably manageable.

Cheers,
Martin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Taqi Jaffri
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 5:14 AM
> To: Doug Turner; Andrei Popescu
> Cc: public-geolocation
> Subject: RE: renaming enableHighAccuracy
> 
> +1. This is something we have also discussed internally, and it makes a
> lot of sense.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Turner
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: Andrei Popescu
> Cc: public-geolocation
> Subject: Re: renaming enableHighAccuracy
> 
> +1
> 
> On Mar 31, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > The 'enableHighAccuracy' attribute continues to generate a lot of
> > controversy so I'd like to propose renaming it.
> >
> > The main reason why it exists is to allow Web developers to say that
> > their application works fine with low-accuracy position fixes and,
> > therefore, the UA should not bother turning on location providers
> that
> > consume a lot of power. Web developers care about power consumption
> > since, on mobile devices especially, this has an impact on how long
> > their applications can be used. So how about renaming this attribute
> > to "lowPowerOnly" (thanks to Steve Block for the suggestion) ? This
> > name is closer to the intended effect: a hint that the implementation
> > should make use of only what it considers to be low power providers.
> > What is a low power provider is left to the implementation to decide,
> > but a reasonable course of action would be to avoid powering up the
> > GPS when "lowPowerOnly" attribute is set to true.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrei
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 21:54:54 UTC

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