www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: Geolocation header

From: Luis Barguñó Jané <luisbargu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 22:41:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPA9heXNoHyizs_CXLH_U4NFD1CxP_MeemcA4TdM1cowoTDo0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>
> after the 3rd question you will allow it for the whole site, believe me ...
> otherways the non existence of a serious use case is just proven ...
>

The permission is per-origin, so no need for a 3rd question. The permission
is the same as the JS API.

and the optimization you are talking about doesn't really make any sense,
> when you are talking serious about the
> problems you're raising ...
>
>
I'm still not sure I understand the tone of your replies, instead of a
constructive attitude. Regardless of the content we are discussing, I never
said what you mention "doesn't make any sense", even if I don't agree.
Because that goes beyond respect.

I still think two roundtrips to one roundtrip makes sense, and probably
others who care about the internet agree.

And back to the concern you have. See sentence in the document I sent:
"Consider: The Geolocation header MUST only be sent when the request is for
a page loaded in a top level frame."

If we decide to include this, the scenario you are describing is just gone?
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2017 20:41:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 August 2017 20:41:40 UTC