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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:07:31 -0700
Cc: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, Alec Berntson <alecb@windows.microsoft.com>, Marc Linsner <mlinsner@cisco.com>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <127B8B6E-F0E0-443C-8A2B-5E9AE081C96B@gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>

On Mar 19, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Richard Barnes wrote:

>> I do not think we have any use cases that require comparing  
>> addresses for equality.  We clearly did not for the v1 addressing  
>> (coords).
> Neither of these statements is really true, if you think about it.


I guess I was thinking that we are not adding operators in the API  
that allows for comparisons between Coords.  And similarly, we do not  
want to add that to the V2 API.

>> Secondly, we are not designing this API for someone like your or me  
>> or anyone on this mailing list that can understand thirty+ fields...
> I appreciate the need for simplicity.  However, based on the input we
> got in GEOPRIV from organizations that deal with addresses in
> mission-critical applications (especially NENA, who do 9-1-1  
> standards),
> the RFC 4119 format is about as simple as the format can be made and
> still map sensibly to authoritative address sources, even just in  
> the US.

RIght, the question really is -- is this a use case for the spec we  
are designing or is this out of scope.

Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 17:08:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:54 UTC