I personally think the datum information should be part of the URI content
and not part of the scheme as proposed by "geo-wgs84:" and "geo-fooo:"
Applications are registered at the OS and browser levels to a particular
scheme, which in this case would be "geo". Pushing datum information to the
scheme means that an application will have to register for every possible
datum that it supports and provide no capacity for it to attempt to handle
other datums. It would be somewhat akin to having each different HTTP
authentication mechanism exposed as "http-basic:", "http-ntlm:", etc.
Further, it would require an additional IANA registration every time a new
datum was considered (http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html).
As such, I'd propose to stick to something like "geo:wgs84:12.34,56.78" and
"geo:foo:12.34,56.78".
Thanks,
Tatham Oddie
au mob: +61 414 275 989, us cell: +1 213 422 7068, skype: tathamoddie,
landline: +61 2 8011 3982, fax: +61 2 9475 5172
my business: tixi.com.au - Ticketing without the dramas
-----Original Message-----
From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Andy Mabbett
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2009 7:00 AM
To: GEOPRIV
Subject: [Geopriv] The "geo" URI draft
In message <4A2578CE.1050204@viagenie.ca>, Simon Perreault
<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
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
