- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:51:04 -0700
- To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
- Cc: Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Does someone have a proposal IDL of the full civic address with "human readable names?" (instead of A2, "county"). I saw Andrei's reduced form proposal, but didn't see anything that was a complete civic address. Doug On Mar 10, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote: > Most cases won't need all the fields, but having them will allow > more applications and avoid the hackery and guestimes I talked > about. Just as an example, having a separate building name field is > quite useful on campus for friend-finder applications ("who is in > the same building?"). In some other cases, we may only have limited > precision (e.g., county-level for IP-address-to-location services). > I admit that I find it hard to believe that somebody doesn't > understand "building name", "floor", "street suffix" or some of the > other fields proposed. The more obscure fields, such as the street > branch system, will only apply regionally, so developers that don't > care about Indonesia can ignore them, but they do make the system > capable of handling more than just US and European addresses. > > Henning > > On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Doug Turner wrote: > >> Hello Henning, >> >> I do not think we have any use cases that require comparing >> addresses for equality. We clearly did not for the v1 addressing >> (coords). I tend to think that civic addressing comparison is out >> of scope. For example, if two UAs pass back an address for the >> same place, I do not think that we should make any guarantees that >> the data the UA pass back to the requesting site is the same. In >> fact, I do not think that the addresses need to be the same between >> different runs of the same UA. The reason for this is that UAs >> might use different back-ends for determining the actual location >> of the UA. Maybe the first geolocation request uses WiFi- >> >location, and the second request uses a user defined position, or >> what have you. >> >> Secondly, we are not designing this API for someone like your or me >> or anyone on this mailing list that can understand thirty+ fields, >> have no problem looking up extensive documentation, and enjoy >> digging through mailing list for rationale on the way things are >> they way they are.. Rather, the API must be designed for the web >> at large. I think we should design the simple-to-use over a can-do- >> everything-everyone-every-wanted address for v2. >> >> Keep in mind, that one could always create a civic address spec >> that leverages the geolocation specification and implementations. >> For example, you could add a separate civicAddress to the position >> object in a future specification. >>
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 14:51:46 UTC