W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-geolocation@w3.org > March 2009

RE: Civic Address for V2

From: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:32:10 -0800
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
CC: "Allan Thomson (althomso)" <althomso@cisco.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D8939A2F7A8C124ABE6075E08C52CDCA22071D7AAC@TK5-EXMBX-W603v.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
What are the use cases that require 17 elements to define an address? The use cases that have been defined in the spec (http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/) [which would make use of civic address data, *'d] seem to be well serviced by the simpler format I proposed.

6.1.1 Find points of interest in the user's area*
6.1.2 Annotating content with location information*
6.1.3 Show the user's position on a map*
6.1.4 Turn-by-turn route navigation
6.1.5 Alerts when points of interest are in the user's vicinity
6.1.6 Up-to-date local information*
6.1.7 Location-tagged status updates in social networking applications*

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 1:45 PM
To: Henning Schulzrinne
Cc: Allan Thomson (althomso); Alec Berntson; public-geolocation@w3.org
Subject: Re: Civic Address for V2

> (I've been involved in the DHCP civic draft, which
> yielded the 4119 elements).

Just to be clear, Henning means "the elements that are in RFC 4119".
There are only 17 of these elements (not 4119), which is admittedly more
than in Alec's format, but still very manageable.

Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 16:33:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:54 UTC