- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:02:54 +0000
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi Richard, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: > Hi Alec, > > Thanks for bringing this issue back up. My $.02: > >> a. I propose we use the same fields as the CivicAddressReport in the >> Windows 7 Location API. > > Where on earth did you get that idea? :) > > I tend to agree with Allan that a representation compatible with RFC 4119 > (more properly, RFC 5139) would be more universally applicable. > > I appreciate that some view this as too complex, so there may be value in > producing a simplified version. However, it should be a profile of the IETF > format, in that there should be a 1-1 mapping between the two. > It's great to have RFC 5139 as a reference but, as you mentioned, it seems (at least to me) too complex for a Web API. We should look for a simplified version and I think Alec's proposal is a great start (please also have a look at Gears). What I don't understand is why do you say that it should be a profile of the IETF format. I'm not aware of any such requirement. Also, if it's a simplified format, how can we have a 1-1 mapping to the full format? To me simplified means somewhat less fields, right? Thanks, Andrei
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 20:03:32 UTC