- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:00:37 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 17:01:09 UTC
On Thursday, May 16, 2013, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 16/05/2013 17:33 , Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Alex Russell wrote: >> >>> watchPosition() and clearWatch() don't seem to difficult -- >>> watchPosition() starts an event stream. >>> >> >> Right, I thought of the same. But we don't have a standard way on the >> platform to register for "event streams". That is, neither >> addEventListener() nor "foo.onwhatever" (EventHandler attribute) are >> well suited for this because of the need to provide "options". >> > > If we're going to redesign Geolocation, we might as well do so in a way > that supports good UX and good privacy practices (i.e. not triggering a > permission bar/dialog devoid of context) but rather a user-activated > control. > That's one reason I keep advocating for <input type="location">. But the API is still necessary and probably going to need to throw permissions dialogs forever. And that's OK, so long as it's the exception and not the rule. > I'm not generally a fan of exposing device APIs through form controls, but > this strikes me as a great example that requires precisely that sort of > user-mediation. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 17:01:09 UTC