W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > July 2011

RE: Geolocation V2 and backwards compatibility

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>
Message-ID: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F040B26CC49@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com>
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?

Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 05:32:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:02 UTC