W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Geolocation Errata and Updated Working Draft

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:10:17 +1000
Message-Id: <1405415417.14742.141776541.76454DE4@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>
Cc: Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>, "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, at 22:40, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le vendredi 11 juillet 2014 à 20:07 +1000, Mounir Lamouri a écrit :
> > In other words, when the interface is like a partial interface but isn't
> > defined as one for readability. This specification seems to over use
> > [NoInterfaceObject] by setting it in most of its interfaces. Why?
> We discussed this a bit back in February:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2014Feb/thread.html#msg3
> In this case, it didn't seem that exposing the Position, Coordinates or
> PositionError interface in the global namespace served much purpose.

WebIDL says:
The [NoInterfaceObject] extended attribute should not be used on
interfaces that are not solely used as supplemental interfaces, unless
there are clear Web compatibility reasons for doing so. Specification
authors who wish to use this feature are strongly advised to discuss
this on the public-script-coord@w3.org mailing list before proceeding.

I guess Geolocation is violating this, right? Obviously, if those
interfaces had to be exposed, you would want to prefix them with
Geolocation (ie. GeolocationPosition, GeolocationCoordinates,

-- Mounir
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 09:10:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:08 UTC