Re: Civic Address for V2

Hey Andrei,

I think we're mostly in agreement.  A few more points inline:

<trimmed/>
> I understand this goal. However, I feel that this isn't as important
> for our spec as providing a format that is easy to understand and code
> against.

Maybe I'm just too accustomed to the IETF civic address standards, but 
it's not clear to me that these goals are in conflict.  I'm pretty sure 
that web sites that have to deal with civic addresses in a serious way 
are already using the official address databases in the US.  (E.g., when 
Amazon checks an address you enter and says "Is this what you meant?" -- 
the thing you meant is from the DB)  There's already a standard 
translation between those addresses and the IETF format, defined in RFC 
4776.  That means that there are websites out there already that 
understand addresses that are equivalent in complexity to the RFC 4119 
addresses (actually, more complex).

Is there a specific part of the RFC 4119 civic address spec that you 
find confusing?


> As I mentioned in the email to Marc, we could provide an
> appendix that shows how to convert to / from the IETF format. This
> would be as a convenience to those Geolocation API implementers who
> may have to deal with the IETF format as an input (or an output for
> those specific usecases you mentioned). The users of the Geolocation
> API should be offered something simpler.

If properly constructed, this appendix would provide the 1-1 mapping I 
was talking about.  We would just have to be careful that the mapping is 
faithful.

Cheers,
--Richard

Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2009 15:27:22 UTC