- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:27:38 +0200
- To: Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On 26 May 2009, at 19:03, Greg Bolsinga wrote: >> 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. So, let's take a step back here. Are you objecting against having *any* privacy considerations in the spec? Or are you objecting against having a MUST in normative language? As I said early on in this thread, I could live with text along the lines of what I proposed included as non-normative implementation guidance (or a "strong should", or something like that), distinct from conformance requirements, *if* that helps to get clear guidance on privacy into the specification. It was Andrei who brought up the point that the privacy considerations are currently meant to be normative. Care to elaborate?
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 17:27:46 UTC