- From: Allan Thomson (althomso) <althomso@cisco.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:14:33 -0700
- To: "Doug Turner" <doug.turner@gmail.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: "public-geolocation" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
And to be clear my email was in response to Doug's question on zip code format. -----Original Message----- From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Allan Thomson (althomso) Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:17 PM To: Doug Turner; Andrei Popescu Cc: public-geolocation Subject: RE: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft I would suggest that it is important to not define rules or constraints that it make it hard to do 1-1 mapping between Geopriv location object to this schema. Allan -----Original Message----- From: public-geolocation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-geolocation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Turner Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:12 PM To: Andrei Popescu Cc: public-geolocation Subject: Re: Geolication API level 2 - editor's draft I propose that we move postalCode from its position at the bottom of the interface, to between "city" and "street". In this way, the precision of the location increases with each field. it is not mentioned, but we should state that each attribute can be null. should the zip code be required to be in some sort of format? An extended ZIP + 4? Or should it be freeform? Doug On Mar 20, 2009, at 6:16 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have uploaded the first editor's draft for the Geolocation API v2 >> (or level 2): >> >> http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html >> >> The main change is the addition of the Address interface. > > FYI, here's the diff to v1: > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/geo/api/spec-source-v2.html.diff?r1=1.4&r2=1. > 5&f=h > > Andrei >
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 22:15:17 UTC