On 10/21/2016 3:11 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Does this mean that we'd be breaking one in 5 geolocation requests as a
> result of this? That seems super high. :(
Agreed. For example, my understanding is that this will break
http://www.nextbus.com/ (and thus http://www.nextmuni.com/ ) location
Ekr,
This sounds to me like there are sufficient reasons to formally object
to this charter, and as Martin points out, a special case of IoT/WoT
(with additional concerns!).
David,
Thus I too think we should formally object, link to our previous
formal objection of the WoT charter (since nearly
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> On 2016-10-21 3:49 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> The geolocation API allows web pages to request the user's geolocation,
>> drawing from things like GPS on mobile, and doing WiFi / IP based
>> geolocation on desktop.
I have reviewed the charter and the current set of deliverables. The
work appears to be proceeding reasonably (pragmatically, with many
members/implementers including Apple and Google) and reasonably
minimally scoped. There is also the companion Second Screen Community
Group which appears to be
The geolocation API allows web pages to request the user's geolocation,
drawing from things like GPS on mobile, and doing WiFi / IP based
geolocation on desktop.
Due to the privacy risks associated with this functionality, I would like
to propose that we restrict this functionality to secure
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:05 AM, wrote:
> My point for the above paragraph is that even if Mozilla stops security
> updates for ESR 52, these computers will still need to get around on the
> Internet. These machines will still need to do log ins and banking. The world
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:33:06 AM UTC-5, Peter Dolanjski wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to provide thorough feedback.
>
> 3) For Windows Vista, I don't see where the fire is. I realize that it has
> > a vastly smaller user base, but it is close to Window 7 code base and API
> > wise.
7 matches
Mail list logo