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

Re: Geofencing API proposal

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:11:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXqBoHg0KqTftxNrphPU2YqBN9foaaLdAGk=OrdG4yKSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Marijn Kruisselbrink <mek@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
I do have some feedback on the current discussion, but I'm in the middle of
the advisory board meeting, so don't have time to detail it before Friday.
 I put Marijn's proposal into a pull request for the geoloca github:
https://github.com/w3c/geolocation-api/pull/1.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 15 September 2014 17:20, Marijn Kruisselbrink <mek@google.com> wrote:
> > And as promised, here an update to my proposal.
>
>
> I think that we're almost talking about the same thing at this point.
> Most of the differences seem to come down largely to taste.
>
> On the events in the global scope, I see no reason why the SW can't
> install listeners on the set of GeofencingRegistration instances when
> it is activated/restored in much the same way that it installs a
> global listener.  That ensures that the events are the same in both
> contexts.  Though I note that you can't alter the set of fences from
> the SW in your proposal.  Is that intentional?
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 07:12:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:09 UTC