RE: Geolocation V2 and backwards compatibility

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