Re: What about Reverse Geocoding?

On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, Richard Barnes wrote:
> Adding a field to the API entails no cost for implementers that don't 
> want to use it -- either on the location provider end or the consumer 
> end.

This is a huge fallacy. Everything we add to the spec has a cost to the 
Web platform as a whole, in added complexity to the spec, to people 
writing test suites, to people writing and reading tutorials, to people 
wanting to know why the feature doesn't work in their browser, to people 
filing bugs on browser vendors asking for that feature, to people arguing 
back and forth about the feature not being implemented despite it being in 
a spec, and so forth.

Personally I think we shouldn't confuse an address API with a position 
API. They are different, have different use cases, needs, and 
requirements, and are important to different people.

I would recommend creating a new draft to handle addresses if there are 
problems that aren't addressed by a position API that an address API would 
handle. I really don't think we should merge the two.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 23:59:26 UTC