- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:06:20 +0000
- To: Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com>
- Cc: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi, On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Lars Erik Bolstad <lbolstad@opera.com> wrote: > Matt Womer wrote: >> >> Hi hi, >> >> On Mar 24, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote: >>> >>> If the bad guy is on the wire, couldn't he just change the code to say >>> he wanted high accuracy? >> >> Certainly. Though UAs could use the setting of this bit to in some manner >> relay to the user that this is a high accuracy request, and perhaps give the >> user pause before accepting in the permission phase. >> >> -Matt >> >> > > I think Dominique's proposed addition to the spec makes sense. > I also think it should be left to the UA implementors to decide to what > extent location accuracy should be made negotiable in the user interface. > I think there are a few reasons why we should not do this: - this attribute has always been about saving power, not about accuracy. The assumption was that the more power a sensor consumes, the more accurate it is. That's not necessarily always true so this attribute is badly named (although the spec is pretty clear about its real intent). Adding privacy semantics to this attribute is completely misleading: its current semantics, controversial as they may be, have absolutely nothing to do with privacy. - we have an open issue to remove / rename this parameter in V2: http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/6 I therefore propose we leave the spec unchanged. In v2 we'll either remove it or rename it to make it clear it's about power saving. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 15:38:50 UTC