- From: Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:15:55 +0100
- To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>
- Cc: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
> Why would it be desirable to have Position.coordinates, but not Coordinates.latitude? This is to allow an implementation to return partial coordinates (eg altitude) without latitude and longitude. This could be useful in some usecases. > Or, in the interests of consistency, doesn't "requestCoords" make more sense? No, because of the interaction with the address data that will be available in V2. I think that requestCoordinates implies 'I'd like to get coordinates, but if you can't supply them, but can supply something else (eg an address), count this as success'. As a result, Position.coordinates could still be null. The flag needs to replicate the semantics of the V1 API - 'If you can't supply latitude, longitude and accuracy, even if you can supply other data, count this as failure' - so Position.coordinates is always non-null. requireCoordinates or requireLatitudeLongitudeAccuracy seem to capture this better. On a related note, we intend to add PositonOptions.requestAddress to mean that an address is desired, but not required. This would default to false to avoid the expense of an address look-up server-side when not required. Steve -- Google UK Limited Registered Office: Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9TQ Registered in England Number: 3977902
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 11:16:19 UTC