- From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:03:55 -0800
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: > Actually, this doesn't seem odd to me at all. If you were designing API > for sending email, you would definitely want it to be compatible with RFC > 2821 (SMTP) and RFC 2822 (E-mail formats). If you were designing an API for > getting information over HTTP, you would want it to be compatible with RFC > 2616. (Most such APIs have the above properties!) It doesn't seem that much > of a stretch to say that it would be good for a Geolocation API be > compatible with RFC 4119. The goal in those cases would probably be to be compatible with existing deployed systems, not to be compatible with the various RFCs. The fact that those systems happen to mostly implement published standards makes it more convenient to achieve compatibility, but compatibility is the goal. - a
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 18:04:32 UTC