- From: Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:03:51 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On May 26, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Doug Turner wrote: > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:00 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >> >> I am sorry but I do not see above anything that answers my question. >> You are asking to separate the goal from the realization of the goal. >> To me this is entirely unrealistic in this case: the only mechanism >> that has been proposed so far to realize the goal is some sort of >> visual indicator. But whether this achieves the goal is debatable. >> Also, what if the UA has a full screen mode (this was mentioned >> before)? So what is an implementer supposed to do? For these reasons >> I'm afraid that adding your goal to the spec will put our >> implementers >> in an impossible situation. This is why I oppose adding your goal to >> the spec. >> >> Thanks, >> Andrei > > > > Thanks Andrei. I think I agree with most of what you said. As I > stated before, Mozilla will make up its own mind regarding UI in > Firefox and Fenenc. We agreed that having an explict permission > dialog with the user before sharing geolocation, but I do not think > we would be down for having some flashing widget thing that tells > you that geolocation is happening. My point of view is that we > shouldn't spec out stuff that is going to make most UAs non- > conforming, that a blinking LED that says "the browser is doing > something" hurts users and is dreadfully ugly, and "forgetting" the > user permission after some seemingly random time interval is a > really bad idea. +1 This spec is about getting a location, not how it is implemented. Thanks, -- Greg
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:04:29 UTC