hello. >> i like the general idea. this would also allow contexts in which no lat/long >> information is given at all. for each context, there would have to be a >> definition which parts of a position (lat/log, elevation, uri, bearing, >> speed) can/must be present, and how they are defined. if it is done that >> way, there would have to be at least three context identifiers for wgs84 >> coordinates, though, because elevation should at least be supported for >> plain wg84, egm96, and barometric values. > I think it is better for the web if we choose one way to interpret the > API. Interop is hard to achieve when the developer has to be ready for > many different measurement systems. that's true as long as you can simply convert values. for elevation, i think wgs84<->egm96 can be done in both direction (if you also have the lat/long values). for barometric pressure, there's no way you can map that automatically, and yet it may be an interesting value that a device might want to make available. but claiming that it is a wgs84 or egm96 value when it's not (because the device might have no gps) would not be a good idea. i agree that simplification is a good goal to have for a web API, but in some cases that might still mean that certain messy details of the real world have to be exposed. cheers, dret.Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 21:51:55 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:13:29 GMT