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

Re: Civic Address for V2

From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:25:01 -0700
Message-ID: <49C7C5ED.3060803@bbn.com>
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>, Andrei Popescu <andreip@google.com>, "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
>>> 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.

The reason there's no special comparison stuff for coords is that none 
is needed.  The reason this is possible is that the coords format has 
enough fields that testing for equality can be done trivially, by 
comparing fields for exact matches.

The proposals to collapse fields are something like a proposal to have a 
single unstructured "latlong" field where all of the following are 
acceptable (since the content of the field is unstructured):
-- "lat long"
-- "lat\n\n\t\nlong"
-- "My latitude is <lat> and my longitude is <long>"
-- "long lat"
This would clearly screw up lots of geodetic-based applications.  In 
fact, I've already gotten some complaints about the GML point format, 
which represents lat/long information as "lat\s+long", pretty unambiguously.

--Richard
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 17:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:33:52 UTC