W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > July 2008

RE: skeleton Geolocation API

From: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 16:06:49 -0700
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: "public-geolocation@w3c.org" <public-geolocation@w3c.org>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Message-ID: <D8939A2F7A8C124ABE6075E08C52CDCA031C02DA60@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>

I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrei Popescu
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Erik Wilde
Cc: public-geolocation@w3c.org; Aaron Boodman
Subject: Re: skeleton Geolocation API


Hi Erik,

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:08 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> if there is (sufficient) consensus that locations are only spatial and
> that this is how locations are defined, then this is how it's going to be.

I  think at this stage we have sufficient consensus about this, so I
would therefore propose that, for version 1 of the Geolocation API
specification, we define location in terms of spatial coordinates.
Also note that geo URIs [1] can be trivially built from a Position
object. Defining position in other ways, including defining other type
of URI schemes (e.g. as proposed in [2]) should be out of scope for
this specification.

Many thanks,
Andrei

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mayrhofer-geopriv-geo-uri-00.txt
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2007Dec/0015.html "
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 23:07:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 March 2012 18:13:39 GMT