- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:15:56 +0000
- To: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org> wrote: > > 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. > I just checked and Adrian is right, nobody shows the scheme part. I think changing to say "host" is reasonable. Adrian, would be ok with saying "host" and keeping this as a MUST? Thanks, Andrei
Received on Friday, 19 November 2010 15:16:31 UTC