- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:01:43 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>, office@manuelbieh.de, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi, On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org> wrote: > Le lundi 06 juin 2011 à 11:27 +0100, Steve Block a écrit : >> I think that exposing WiFi data is outside the scope of the spec. The >> spec intends to be a high-level interface to position information, not >> a source of low-level sensor data. See >> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#introduction and >> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html#scope. > > One need that this request illustrates, though, is the option to provide > non-default location providers, so that a browser could query another > location provider than the one it comes with. > > This would apply for premises where the Wifi localization is not > publicly available, or where the wifi access points are positioned only > temporarily (e.g. for a conference). > Providing a mechanism for alternative location providers is not part of any of our group's deliverables. Also please note that such a mechanism would also involve standardizing some kind of communication protocol between the UA and the location provider. We are not chartered to produce such a specification either. > This sounds like a use case for the optional item in the group charter: > The Working Group may also explore adding alternative interfaces > (e.g. markup, REST APIs) to the Geolocation API Level 2 API. > Actually I think this is related to the previous point in the charter: it is about exposing the geolocation data in other forms than a JS object. It is not about alternative location providers. Thanks, Andrei
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 13:02:09 UTC