- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:58:11 +0200
- To: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Michael van Ouwerkerk <mvanouwerkerk@google.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Le mardi 15 juillet 2014 à 21:50 +1000, Mounir Lamouri a écrit : > 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. Sounds good to me; Michael, would you be willing to start such a discussion? > > > 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. (that's indeed what I meant :) Dom > [1] https://github.com/w3c/screen-orientation/issues/13 > > -- Mounir >
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 11:58:28 UTC