- From: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:20:44 -0500
- To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- 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>
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