- From: Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:12:34 -0700
- To: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
I can put mine in IDL so we have it as a reference? I'll do that later today. Andrei On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 15:13:11 UTC