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 21:50:42 +1000
Message-Id: <1405425042.19365.141820885.5464B39B@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 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

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