@Richard_Maher So I need to admit a confusion. Based on all my reading and conversations with others, I came to believe that serviceworker was not a good fit for geolocation… then based on your suggestion of reading the extensibility section, I decided to re-read the entirety of the spec, and I find this:
Service workers are generic, event-driven, time-limited script contexts that run at an origin. These properties make them natural endpoints for a range of runtime services that may outlive the context of a particular document, e.g. handling push notifications, background data synchronization, responding to resource requests from other origins, or receiving centralized updates to expensive-to-calculate data (e.g., geolocation or gyroscope).
Now I’m at a loss, if I am reading that paragraph correctly, it is explicitly noting geolocation as a service that serviceworkers are a natural endpoint. So at some point the spec writers believed that it was not only possible, but it would be a good fit.
Im wondering what made them change their minds. @marcosc can you provide some insight? It would be helpful for shaping the continuing conversation?