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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:02:54 +0000
Message-ID: <708552fb0903021202l464e3a41h2a03a8eabb225987@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC