- From: Angel Machín <angel.machin@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:04:06 +0200
- To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
Hi Martin, On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote: > I'm surprised that augmented reality use cases aren't described. It seems a perfect fit with geolocation. We don't have any use case in the spec actually, section 6 is empty. I agree augmented reality is a very good one, could you please elaborate it a little bit more? > I sent comments in response to your original announcement of the orientation API spec. I didn't get any response on these. > > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2010Mar/0013.html> Related to your previous comments: On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote: > On my first read, I assumed that these events would be cumulative changes from the current orientation. > The angles are described in relation to the device axes (A, B, C), not the local reference frame (X, Y, Z), which doesn't help in making this any clearer. > There is no clear link between (A, B, C) and (X, Y, Z). I think that the three angles (theta, phi, gamma) describe the position of the device reference system (A, B, C) related to the Earth reference system (X, Y, Z) I agree that diagrams would clarify the whole picture. Thanks, Angel
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 08:04:41 UTC