- From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:16:04 -0700
- To: "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Andrei - I have a clarifying question. Is the intent of the attribute to force the client to ONLY use low power or is it intended to "prefer" low power over higher powered options? If the answer is don't use high power under any circumstance then the suggestion you have is a good and the expectation would be that the API returns no location if no low power options are available. If the answer is use high power only if low power isn't available then maybe "preferLowPower" would be a better choice and the expectation would be that the API returns location if low power OR high power is available. Regards allan -----Original Message----- From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Popescu Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:54 AM To: public-geolocation Subject: renaming enableHighAccuracy 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
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 23:16:50 UTC