- From: John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:21:43 -0700
- 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