- From: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:00:47 -0500
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- CC: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Andrei, I'm curious how you propose to reconcile the differences between this proposed object and RFC5139? A client on any IEEE network (Ethernet, 802.11, WiMAX), residential broadband, enterprise, and any client a router hop away from a 3G/4G network will be receiving a RFC5139 location object from the network. -Marc- On 3/2/09 3:02 PM, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com> wrote: > 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 23:01:34 UTC