That's a good point. I think you're right that the "navigator" object might make more sense:
// Example var location = navigator.getLocation() alert(location.latitude+', '+location.longitude); thoughts? From: Steve Runyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:27 PM To: Ryan Sarver Subject: Re: [whatwg] Geolocation in the browser You couldn't use window.location because that's already used: "the location object represents information about the URL of any currently open window or of a specific frame" (Danny Goodman, JavaScript Bible 4e, p 486). How about the navigator object? On 2/21/07, Ryan Sarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: David, The ICBM standard is for geotagging the actual content whereas we are talking about a standard that lets the content know the location of the User or device so that the website can be location-aware. I want to use as much of the existing standards, but have more questions about where it should exist in ecosystem and how servers and webpages would expect to see it and use it. -----Original Message----- From: David Latapie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:56 PM To: Ryan Sarver Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [whatwg] Geolocation in the browser On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:31:11 -0500, Ryan Sarver wrote: > - would it make sense to also expose it in the request headers? This > way the server receives it on the first request as opposed to through > the client after the initial page request > > > > User-Geolocation: 43.338018, -71.817930 Surely you've heard of ICBM (<meta name="ICBM" content="46.025507, 14.300186" />) Could elaborate on what you like and dislike on this? -- </david_latapie> U+0F00 http://blog.empyree.org/en (English) http://blog.empyree.org/fr (Français) http://blog.empyree.org/sl (Slovensko)
