That doesn't prevent the later addition of a CRSURN parameter, but I think that I'd be opposed to that as I was on this ;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Alexander Mayrhofer
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 2009 10:05 AM
> To: Ivan Shmakov; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] geo: URI: why crs=, andnotcrsURI=?
>
> > With such a parameter, a sheer number of already defined CRS
> > becomes available for the use in the geo: URIs.
>
> Theoretically, yes. Practically, only if the definition of the CRS is
> crystal clear about everything that is required for URI semantics (see
> definitions of WGS-84 in the document).
>
> Another issue that bothers me is that the sheer number of defined CRSes
> would almost make it impossible to support all those CRSes - which
> would
> probably hurt interopability.
>
> Does anybody else have an opinion about this?
>
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
