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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:54:57 -0500
To: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
CC: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5D2BD01.11ABE%mlinsner@cisco.com>
Andrei,

How about a 2-way conversion, from IETF to W3C then back to IETF?

-Marc-


On 3/3/09 10:08 AM, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com> 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 15:55:50 UTC

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