TPAC 2025 status report

[siusin]

TPAC 2025 will be hybrid.

There will be a Devices and Sensors Working Group and WebApps Working Group Joint meeting in Kobe, Japan (and online) at:

• 09:00​–​12:30 Thursday 13 Nov

If you plan to attend, either in person or remotely, please register here.

---

Editors, we need you to do two things before 30 October 2025:

• If you’d like to discuss your spec(s), add the label TPAC2025 to the relevant GitHub issues.
• Complete a status report for your spec(s)

Status report

• Please post your status report as a comment on this issue.

• Your report should answer:

  1. Progress – What has your spec achieved in the last 12 months?
  2. Blockers – Is anything preventing it from moving to Rec with Amendments?
  3. Testing – Is there a testing plan for the changes?
  4. Next Steps – How will you unblock it? Do you need help?

Note: Submit a status report even if you will not attend TPAC.

[marcoscaceres]

For TPAC, (or earlier).

• @himorin to complete moving spec back to CR.

Progress – What has your spec achieved in the last 12 months?

• Added support for emulation

Blockers – Is anything preventing it from moving to Rec with Amendments?

yes! we need to complete:

• Prepare spec as Last Call for Review of Proposed Amendments #188
• Republish as a REC -> CR #180

We are blocked on doing work until we can get this thing back to CR (to avoid more updatable rec pain)

Testing – Is there a testing plan for the changes?

Yes, emulation adds a lot of new possibilities to fully test the API.

However, we are waiting on implementations of the emulation framework.

Next Steps – How will you unblock it? Do you need help?

We need to discussions and get agreement on:

• The timeout option doesn't make sense for watchPosition #184 and Remove the default value of timeout in PositionOptions #185 regarding timeout behavior, and removing the timeout default.
• Consider long term deprecation strategy for timeout option of whatchPosition()
• Add support for AbortSignals to watchPosition() via PositionOptions AbortSignal integration #179
• Do we want to promisify getCurrentPosition()?
• Do we want to support approximate geolocation?
• Do we want to Specify frame destruction behavior #192 ?

@reillyeon, did I miss anything?

[marcoscaceres]

@nondebug, assuming you will be at TPAC, could you present the proposal there? (or someone else).

[marcoscaceres]

Assigned the TPAC labels... designing myself.

[reillyeon]

Looks good. "Next steps" are all good things to work on next for the Geolocation API but aren't blockers for publishing a "Rec with Amendments" or moving to CR.

[marcoscaceres]

I added #192 (frame destruction behavior) as a thing to discuss at TPAC.... though we could get agreement on any of the above before.

[marcoscaceres]

We should talk about the <geolocation> element too.