- From: Greg Bolsinga <bolsinga@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:58:00 -0800
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Doug Turner wrote: > On Nov 11, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Thomson, Martin >> <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote: >>> Hi Andrei, >>> >>> I think that you've got it, but rather than could, I'm saying >>> "should". The API shouldn't assume that the two have the same >>> source, but it doesn't need to be. >>> >>> Rather than saying that we should revisit reverse geocoding in >>> version 2, you should be saying that we should revisit _civic >>> addresses_ in version 2. >> >> Ok, fair enough. I suspect we'll see more demand for this once this >> spec opens up to a larger audience, so I believe it'll be one of the >> top discussion items for v2. >> >> All the best, >> Andrei > > > > +1 For UAs that find that providing the address to users to be a V1 type of item, when is V2 due to be specified? Thanks, -- Greg
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 18:58:57 UTC