Re: general question

Andrew,

I am happy to hear from you again!! You may be right and I do not have
strong preferences on the format/coding, which is out of scope of this
working group.

I am more interested in privacy issues on the geo-tag/header.
I think that using, for example, HTTP HEAD, people can pass around their
position information. This scenario is a bit different from the one written
in your draft, which is for search engines....
Do you have any ideas on how the "Negotiation" written in Section 3.1 of the
geo-header draft can be done? What is the negotiation protocol? What does
the "trusted site list" look like? How can users securely store and access
to the list? etc. I think they are the main topics of this working
group.....

Regards,

Kenji
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Daviel" <andrew@daviel.org>
To: <geopriv@mail.apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: general question

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Kenji Takahashi wrote:
>
> > I believe so. For example, 3GPP is working on 23.032 series and also
Mari
> > wrote an ID,
> >
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-korkea-aho-spatial-dataset-01.t
> > xt. They have not been finalized yet but look soon to be.
>
>
> I have so say I don't like the suggested position format
>
> [N|S]degree.minute.second.f, N60.08.00.235556
> degree range [0-90], decimal fraction f in arbitrary length
>
> It doesn't seem to match anything in common use afaik - nautical,
> recreational, or GIS - and incurs processing overhead converting
> it for use in calculation.
>
> After a couple of years of arguing this issue in Dublin Core, etc. I much
> prefer signed decimal degrees, which is unambiguous (well, apart from axis
> ordering), simple to understand and parse, and compatible with GIS data.
>
> (Common nautical use seems to be to give position e.g.
> 49°04'43"N 140°17'32"E or 49°04.71N 140°17.53N, but the degree symbol is
> not an ASCII character)
>
> --
> Andrew Daviel
> Vancouver Webpages
>
>
>
Received on Sun Sep 30 22:47:35 2001