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

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 15:41:28 -0600

> I would guess that a simple geo coordinate pair is shorter than most
> URLs (more so if absolute URLs are needed). Even most civic data items
> are probably on the order of 60 bytes, so the size difference is truly
> minuscule.

That's probably true, but the minutes state:

>    It was the consensus of the participants that draft-daviel-kaegi- 
> http-geo-header would only be accepted as a working group item if it  
> were first rewritten to use PIDF-LO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:02:43 -0500

>> were first rewritten to use PIDF-LO.

As I remember the meeting, the "rewritten to use PIDF-LO" was in the  
context of protecting privacy.  I don't think anybody considered a  
URI to a PIDF-LO embedded in a header as a solution to the problem.

> [mf2]_______________________________________________

Huh?  What?  All email sent to IETF working group mailing lists is  
for public consumption.

-andy