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

Re: ISSUE-3 (civic-addressing): Exposing civic addresses in the API

From: John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:21:43 -0700
Message-Id: <a06240808c5f0888460dc@[192.168.1.111]>
To: Henning Schulzrinne <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: Geolocation Working Group WG <public-geolocation@w3.org>
And, FWIW, 4119 reflects years of work and thinking on how to do 
civic so that it works for addressing schemes around the world (and 
is not US- or EU-centric) ... questions that this list has just 
started to get into....

At 8:59 PM -0400 3/25/09, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>This seems like an incomplete list of proposals, given that a number 
>of people have also proposed the RFC 4119 list.
>
>On Mar 25, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Geolocation Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>>
>>ISSUE-3 (civic-addressing): Exposing civic addresses in the API
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2008/geolocation/track/issues/3
>>
>>Raised by: Matt Womer
>>On product:
>>
>>We've discussed including different notions of location in the API, 
>>most notably "civic addresses".
>>
>>Civic addresses currently are being included in 'v2' or 'level 2'  
>>of the recommendation.
>>
>>Proposals for civic addresses have included:
>>
>>* multiple forms of location simultaneously (@@url?)
>>
>>* civic addresses optionally: 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2008Jun/0058.html
>>
>>* Microsoft/Alec Bernston's proposal: 
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Feb/0000.html
>>
>>The latter informed the first editor's draft of v2 as mentioned here:
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-geolocation/2009Mar/0072.html
>>
>>
>>The main issue thus far has been in what format the address is represented.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 01:22:25 UTC

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