[Geopriv] Re: Review of civic ID for Geopriv WG

>> If I understand you correctly, you'd like to suggest that elements
>> grouped by common language. I agree since this would be more
>> efficient, but it should not affect correctness.
>
>
> you don't believe this can happen when you state redundant fields should
> not be included when including more than one "set" or "group" within the
> same packet can be present?
>
> It at least seemed like it could get confusing - but maybe it's just me
> (the way I read it), but this is as much a way of debugging it as anything.

In pseudo-code, this is pretty simple:

while (e = next element) {
   switch (CAvalue) {
   case LANG:
     lang = value;
     break;
   case SCRIPT:
     script = value;
     break;
   default:
     option(value, lang, script);
}}

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:52:49 -0400