- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:07:31 -0700
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- 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>
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. <snip> 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. Doug
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 17:08:35 UTC