- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:46:53 +0000
- To: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Hi Alec,
Many thanks for the proposal, I like it!
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Alec Berntson
<alecb@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As per my Action Item from the December F2F meeting, I’d like to put
> forth a proposal for Civic Address Support in V2.
>
>
>
> Civic Address support will be surfaced by including an additional object in
> the Position object next to the cords object. For Example:
>
>
>
> interface Position {
>
> readonly attribute Coordinates coords;
>
> readonly attribute DOMTimeStamp timestamp;
>
> readonly attribute CivicAddress addr; // <-this is how it will be added
>
I was wondering if the prefix 'civic' adds any value? How about simply
'address'?
> };
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. The contents of the CivicAddress Object
>
> a. I propose we use the same fields as the CivicAddressReport in the
> Windows 7 Location API. These fields work internationally and have no
> geopolitical issues. They are sufficiently expressive to cover virtually any
> address that would be used in practice.
>
> i.
> Address1
>
> ii.
> Address2
>
> iii. City
>
> iv.
> PostalCode
>
> v.
> StateProvince
>
> vi.
> CountryRegion
>
In Gears we have a similar format.
http://code.google.com/apis/gears/api_geolocation.html#address
The main difference is that we have 'Street' and 'StreetNumber'
instead of 'Address1' and 'Address2'.
We also have a couple of extra fields:
- premises - building name or place name (e.g. "Google HQ")
- country code (ISO 3166-1)
Did you consider those?
Thanks,
Andrei
Received on Monday, 2 March 2009 19:47:32 UTC