- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:37:06 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: public-geolocation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AF77932E1D024130A36BCD4BC1CBC66E@gmail.com>
This sounds good. I think we should recharter soon to fix a few small issues, and address geofencing. We probably could also create a promise based API that could replace the existing api. -- Doug Turner On Thursday, August 8, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Hi all, > > As you may remember [0], the Geolocation API spec has been stuck in > Proposed Recommendation [1] since more than a year due to its dependency > on WebIDL, combined with lack of actual support for WebIDL semantics in > its implementations. > > Recently, the W3C Director chose to promote a specification in a similar > situation (Web Storage) to Recommendation status: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2013JulSep/0019.html > and follow up discussions on > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2013JulSep/0057.html > [Member-only links unfortunately] > > Part of that decision was to demote the dependency on WebIDL to its > purely syntactic form, without asserting that implementations also fully > follow the associated semantics. > > I would like to offer to submit a similar transition for the Geolocation > API, and will proceed with such an offer unless I hear objections in the > upcoming week; explicit support for that proposal would also be very > useful. > > Thanks, > > Dom > > 0. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2012Sep/0000.html > 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/PR-geolocation-API-20120510/ > >
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 17:37:36 UTC