- From: Thomson, Martin <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:15:34 +0800
- To: Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- CC: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On 2011-06-30 at 03:43:24, Steve Block wrote: > > requireCoords > This was proposed at the face-to-face and it's certainly less ugly. > One problem is that users might assume that if requireCoordinates is > false, but Position.coordinates is non-null, Coordinates.latitude etc > must also be non-null, which is not true. Why would it be desirable to have Position.coordinates, but not Coordinates..latitude? +1 to less ugly. Or, in the interests of consistency, doesn't "requestCoords" make more sense? --Martin
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 05:32:53 UTC