- From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:50:42 +1000
- 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 Tue, 15 Jul 2014, at 19:43, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > My perspective is that Position and Coordinates would be dictionaries > (and thus, not exposed in the global namespace) if dictionaries were > allowed as attribute values; but I'm happy to bring this back to > public-script-coord if you think that would be useful. I tried to have the Screen Orientation API return a property bag (ie. dictionary) and that did not work out very well [1]. FWIW, the spec can already make this possible by returning an ```object``` and explain how to set the object properties in prose. I think it would be good to go to public-script-coord and expose the situation and see what is recommended. I am pretty sure this is not an unusual pattern and having a recorded discussion about a good practice would be for the best. > > Obviously, if those > > interfaces had to be exposed, you would want to prefix them with > > Geolocation (ie. GeolocationPosition, GeolocationCoordinates, > > GeolocationPositionError). > > Makes sense, indeed. I guess I would be interested in perspectives from > implementors point of views. Changing the interface name doesn't require much work. The cost/benefit ratio is worth it if the interface ends up exposed. [1] https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues/13 -- Mounir
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 11:51:10 UTC