- From: John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:42:43 -0700
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Well, I think a majority of this WG has decided that its consideration of Geopriv has concluded. The W3C more broadly has not concluded its discussion of Geopriv as it relates to this WG, and so I do not know how that should be reflected -- or not -- in the issue tracker. But at a minimum, there is certainly not a unamimous view within the WG that Geopriv should be off the table. John At 12:15 PM +0000 3/26/09, Andrei Popescu wrote: >On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Matt Womer <mdw@w3.org> wrote: >>>> This was discussed at length at the Geolocation F2F and it was voted on. >>>> The Geolocaiton Position object will not include GeoPriv attributes. >>>> >>>> Please explain what has changed that required you to create a new a new >>>> task/issue? >>> >>> It's a catch all issues for tracking the privacy issue, and should be above >>> and beyond just GeoPriv. >>> >> >> To me this looks like an explicit issue related to the Geopriv >> discussion. I thought we concluded that discussion and are now working >> on the wording for the "privacy considerations" sections. Perhaps we >> could close this one (good to track what happened, I agree) and open a >> new issue related to finishing that specific task? We can also have a >> generic issue explaining that we are continuing to look for and invite >> ideas around solving the user privacy problem in the context of the >> Geolocation API and then link to the two other (and more concrete) >> issues? >> > >Ping. Does anyone object to the above suggestion? > >Thanks, >Andrei
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 13:44:27 UTC