- From: Doug Turner <doug.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:46:47 -0700
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On May 11, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > Hey Doug, > > Actually, what I had in mind was changing the location > representation in the WD so that the geodetic object in the > Position object would have the structure of a "GeoJSON object", > i.e., so that a straightforward JSON serialization of > Position.coords would result in a GeoJSON object. What you are saying make sense. GeoJSON seems to be pretty encompassing, probably much more than most web developers need to think about. I wonder if there is a way for them to add a simplified position that would be directly compatible with our position object. In either case, not sure it matters that much as mapping one to the other is a trivial matter. > > More directly to your question, I would imagine that the interop > would be on the frontend, with a site interacting with multiple > sources. The simple use case would be for a site to read location > information from the API and do an XHR to a service that accepts > GeoJSON. If we think this is the only use case, then something like > a toGeoJSON() method on Position.coords might be sufficient > (actually, it might be helpful in either case), but it seems a > little wasteful to have two representations. I do not exactly follow your use case. I think you might be on to something, but I dont fully understand. And yeah, toGeoJSON could be useful even though it is probably just a map call. Doug Turner
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 03:47:31 UTC