<simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> writes
>Making the parameter mandatory, even maybe promoting it to a hierarchy
>element, would probably result in better interoperability. How would
>people feel about this?
>
>geo:wgs84:12.34,56.78
>geo:foooo:12.34,56.78
and...
In message <4A257C16.5020800@stpeter.im>, Peter Saint-Andre
<stpeter@stpeter.im> writes
>Why not "wgs84:12.34,56.78"?
Either model would be OK by me; as would:
geo-wgs84:12.34,56.78
geo-foooo:12.34,56.78
--
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
