W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Request for expressions of interest: revisiting the Geolocation API to make it promise compatible

From: Richard Maher <maherrj@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 11:55:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CABvL1xoeDPuigNzwkni3h+aKyRmnLeyCWyHMf3CbtaHR1NoBBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com>
Cc: "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Giri, (Sorry I missed the deadline)

I have been banned from this list but in case you're still interested in my
opinion here it is.

I don't see a benefit from replacing callback with promise if there is no
new functionality available. Background GeoLocation via ServiceWorkers on
the other hand would be an ideal way to introduce the new API. A
watch_position callback/promise needs to be sufficient to instantiate a
WebWorker (only if page is not currently in foreground)

Cheers Richard Maher

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar <
mandyam@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Please note the issue filed on the Geolocation GH Repo:
> https://github.com/w3c/geolocation-api/issues/8.
>
>
>
> The suggestion is to refactor the Geolocation API to make it promise-based
> (as opposed to its current callback surface).  This approach has been
> adopted by several recent W3C specifications.
>
>
>
> This email is a request for expressions of interest, particularly from
> potential implementers (but developer interest is also welcomed).  Please
> provide feedback by September 2, 2016 (11:59 PM US Pacific time).  All
> responses are welcome, but please try to answer a few basic questions if
> you are in favor of revisiting the API:
>
>
>
> a)      Should the old API surface be deprecated?
>
> b)      Should there be additional features/requirements added to the
> Geoloc. API?  For instance, we had considered in the group at one time as
> to whether a hard requirement for secure contexts was necessary.
>
> c)      Will you provide an implementation?  If so, can you provide an
> approximate timeframe for providing a first experimental implementation?
> {This timeframe could be with respect to any standards milestones, e.g. 6
> months after the First Public Working Draft of the new Geoloc. spec.}
>
>
>
> -Giri Mandyam, Chair – Geolocation Working Group
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2016 03:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:15 UTC