I've just posted an update to the "geo" URI scheme draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/ietf-geporiv-geo-uri
I went through the discussion we had on the list recently, and applied
the following changes to the document (mainly along what Ted Hardie has
proposed in his mail to the list):
- The document does not preclude anymore the use of other coordinate
reference systems besides WGS-84
- WGS-84 is still used as the default CRS
- The definition of other CRSes is up to other documents
To allow for this, i have applied the following changes:
- Extended the ABNF to allow URI parameters
- Define one (optional!) parameter named "crs"
- Generalize text where needed and sensible, so that it applies to other
CRSes as well
- Indicate which text parts are specific to WGS-84
- Clarified that clients MUST NOT try to interpret URIs with unknown CRS
values.
I think this is the best way forward, since it has only minimal
implications on the Scheme itself (the optional URI parameter - still
very simple for the majority of cases), but provides a great deal of
flexibility - if there's a need to define the use of an additional CRS
for the URI scheme, anybody can come up with a draft to define a new
value for the "crs" parameter.
Comments appreciated. From my point of view, next steps would be to have
the document formally reviewed on the "URI-review" list, address
potential privacy issues (if they apply), and reach final consensus.
Thanks,
Alex
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
