Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Geo-HTTP/HTML and location URIs

From: "Marc Berryman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:31:57 -0600

While I agree with most of what Martin said, regarding the geo-tags and
geo-header submissions, I do disagree with the location URI concept. 

The geo-tag draft clearly states:
	This draft describes a method of adding static location data to
   legacy HTML documents using a construct that is familiar to many HTML
   authors. It is intended to be concise, unambiguous, simple to use and
   compatible with existing editing tools....

It later states:

    The method described in this draft is not intended to preempt
   existing or future metadata encapsulation schemes which may better
   serve the needs of a particular community, such as geographic
   information systems (GIS).

Since we are speaking of individuals manually adding location
information to static documents, by individuals who may either be
unfamiliar with HTML and / or GIS metadata, I think the location URI
would be too much to ask of those individuals.

As I see it (which may be completely wrong) these drafts address legacy
data, so  the PIDF-LO could be added to the metadata associated with
these datasets, or could be encapsulated by those more familiar with
HTML and GIS metadata.

Please let me know if I am way off base in this.

Marc B

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Thomson, Martin
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:30 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Geopriv] Geo-HTTP/HTML and location URIs

Hi All,

I have just finished reading the updated submissions for html geo-tags
and http geo-headers.  These drafts are revisions of those mentioned in
the GEOPRIV charter, but I haven't seen much activity until just now.

My question is: what do we anticipate for the future of these drafts
within GEOPRIV?

The drafts are both somewhat constrained in what information can be
conveyed, I personally would prefer to see PIDF-LO being used for
location information.  I do believe that we can't ignore the fact that
they are desired features.

My thoughts are that these drafts would be better served by location
URIs.  A location URI fits into both HTTP headers and HTML metadata and
ensures that all the using-protocol problems are someone else's problem.
I'd also suggest that aligning a HTTP header with the SIP Location
header might be expedient.  The only question: is the indirection
acceptable to its users?

A corollary thought relates to common-policy.  Including X.500 details
would make the following use case possible: User contacts example.com,
including a location URI in the HTTP request header; the user wants
example.com to be able to view their location - they only know them as
"example.com", potentially from their server certificate.  How does a
user grant this access?  I think that the interface outlined in these
drafts is appropriate (http-header 9.1 User Control), but if we use
common-policy - what does the machinery look like?

Martin 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv