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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:20:44 -0500
Cc: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <24C085B3-916A-4314-81B2-75B7C56FD6CD@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
Information lossy conversion is a terrible idea. I'm opposed.

On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>  
> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> A W3C Geolocation implementation that would receive the RFC5139
> address would simply convert it to the format in our spec. We could
> perhaps provide an Appendix with an example that shows how to do the
> conversion? I don't know right now what the mapping would be, but it's
> something we can certainly work on. What do you think?
>
> All the best,
> Andrei
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 15:21:35 UTC

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