ISSUE-7: Should heading & speed be moved out of the Coordinates interface?
heading & speed
Should heading & speed be moved out of the Coordinates interface?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- GeoAPI V2
- Raised by:
- Andrei Popescu
- Opened on:
- 2009-04-03
- Description:
- Given that Geolocation API v2 will have support for address, should 'heading' and 'speed' attributes be moved out of the Coordinates interface? They could go to a separate interface (e.g. Velocity) so that implementation can return any combination of (coords, velocity, address).
Initial description from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Mar/0152.html :
[[
Heading/Direction (less so) and speed (more so) are not specific to
geospatial information AND are common to both civic as well as
geospatial location objects. Suggest heading/direction and speed should
be a separate object that can be referenced by both civic and geospatial
positions.
]] - Related Actions Items:
ACTION-72 on Andrei Popescu to to add the new requirements talked about at the f2f to the requirement section - due 2010-11-11, closedACTION-82 on Stephen Block to Update V2 spec with requireCoords and send diff to list - due 2011-09-14, closed- Related emails:
- RE: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from althomso@cisco.com on 2009-06-11)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from lbolstad@opera.com on 2009-06-11)
- Re: moving to Last Call (from andreip@google.com on 2009-06-10)
- Re: moving to Last Call (from acooper@cdt.org on 2009-06-10)
- Re: moving to Last Call (from rbarnes@bbn.com on 2009-06-10)
- moving to Last Call (from andreip@google.com on 2009-06-10)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from rbarnes@bbn.com on 2009-06-09)
- RE: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from althomso@cisco.com on 2009-06-09)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from lbolstad@opera.com on 2009-06-09)
- RE: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com on 2009-06-09)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from andreip@google.com on 2009-06-09)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from lbolstad@opera.com on 2009-06-09)
- RE: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from althomso@cisco.com on 2009-06-08)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from doug.turner@gmail.com on 2009-06-08)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from bolsinga@apple.com on 2009-06-08)
- Re: updated editor's draft of the Geolocation API specification (from lbolstad@opera.com on 2009-06-08)
- Re: editor's draft should link to last published draft (from andreip@google.com on 2009-04-03)
- ISSUE-7 (heading & speed): Should heading & speed be moved out of the Coordinates interface? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-04-03)
Related notes:
Moving this issue to V2. We already have many V1 implementations that have shipped already and that have these attributes on the Coordinates iface. For the sake of developers, it is better to keep V1 in sync with reality (i.e. existing shipped implementations).
We will re-discuss this issue in the context of V2 of the API.
We will not move the attributes, but we'll allow applications to request velocity on demand.
Lars Erik Bolstad, 4 Nov 2010, 13:38:02We will not move the attributes, but we'll allow applications to request velocity on demand.
Lars Erik Bolstad, 4 Nov 2010, 13:56:48The latest plan is to keep all current attributes in their existing V1 locations, but make them all optional at the IDL level. We will then use a new PositionOptions.requireCoords flag to allow users of the API to force the V1 semantics. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2011Jun/0059.html.
Following agreement at the September 2011 face-to-face, this will be done in ACTION 82.
Display change log
