W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Privacy considerations for implementors of the Geolocation API

From: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:32:49 -0800
Cc: "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0F083A72-7945-4E21-BC02-4AE72F152D1A@dougt.org>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>

On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:

> On Friday, November 12, 2010 10:21 PM, Doug Turner wrote:
>> Hey Adrian!
>> 
>> Yeah, probably misleading.  Basically, I think, we want to use the origin.
>> 
>> f.e.  http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/  ==>
>> http://www.mozilla.com
>> 
>> I think there was some panic about referencing documents that were not
>> recommendations, but we were thinking about:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/origin-0.html#origin
>> 
>> Does this make sense?
>> Doug
> 
> Hi Doug,
> 
> I understand the serialisation - I think the issue with the TAG is that the canonicalised origin isn't actually a URI so they wanted the language changed to clarify this. My problem is that there is a MUST requirement that UAs display this string but as far as I can see, nobody actually does (the implementations I've seen don't show the "http://" part).
> 
> My question, therefore, is does it make sense that this is a MUST? Since we need to go back and change the language around URI anyway perhaps we could consider making these only SHOULDs.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adrian.


I'd like the consideration section to reflect the intent we had.  I would rather have us leave the MUST but change what we meant to be displayed to the user.  Maybe "HOST of the requesting document".  There are probably others with a better name for this field.

Doug
Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 15:33:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:01 UTC